Policymakers must, of course, stick to the evidence and base their decisions around proper, peer-reviewed research. Until, that is, the evidence starts to tell you what you don’t want to hear. The Mayor of London’s office appears to have been caught red-handed in refusing to publish a study it had itself commissioned into the behaviour of residents following the imposition of low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs). The study, by the University of Westminster, found that the presence of an LTN resulted in more people cycling, but it did not decrease car use and had no discernible effect on walking. It reached this conclusion by quizzing more than 4,500 London residents, some of whom lived in LTNs and some who did not.
Shouldn’t we be allowed to know this? It seems that City Hall would rather we didn’t. In spite of agreeing to pay £82,000 for the study, officials cancelled it before it had even concluded, declining to publish it on the grounds that it did not ‘offer sufficient new insights to justify further investment in continuing the survey’. They say they are ‘committed to supporting high-quality research that helps us understand how our policies and programmes are working’ and ‘remain confident that LTNs can reduce traffic levels in the area, making streets safer and enabling more walking and cycling’.
Except this study clearly has provided a new insight. Until now, London Mayor Sadiq Khan has always made out that LTNs would make us less car-dependent. The evidence now suggests they haven’t. In fact, given that LTNs have increased the length of some car journeys, they may well have helped to increase the amount of traffic overall.
What TfL really wanted was a study that reaffirmed Khan’s existing beliefs
What TfL really wanted was a study that reaffirmed Khan’s existing beliefs – provided confirmation of old insights, in other words. They must have thought that they had gone to the right place: the academic commissioned to undertake the study, Professor Rachel Aldred, director of Westminster University’s Active Travel Academy, has produced several previous studies whose findings City Hall did take a liking to. Her personal views on the subject are not in doubt: she has previously been a trustee for the London Cycling Campaign. But evidently she was not prepared to twist evidence in order to help justify the creation of LTNs – and quite rightly not.
Why couldn’t TfL have published the research and said ‘it is good that LTNs are encouraging cycling. It is disappointing, nonetheless, that they do not appear to have persuaded motorists to leave their cars at home and walk – and we are going to be taking another look at these schemes to see what more we can do to cut congestion and pollution and make them work for everyone’?
Instead, TfL have undermined the whole exercise by being selective in what evidence they see fit to present to the public. From now on, research pumped out by City Hall is going to have to have a big asterisk placed next to it with the warning: beware that studies published by the Mayor of London may have been subject to a policy of selective publication.
I am not personally against LTNs – at least not when they are enforced by physical barriers rather than these wretched cameras which seem designed to catch people out in order to raise revenue through fines. If I lived in London, I would want to live plumb in the middle of an LTN – although I might take a different view of them if I found myself living on the edge of one, to where the traffic had been diverted. But LTNs are only going to work if they persuade people to make short journeys on foot rather than by car. By seemingly suppressing evidence that they are not currently doing this, TfL is undermining the whole case for them and quite possibly hastening their demise.
Comments