Rockets

Court Lane and the surrounding roads are always good. Plenty of people always out and about and lots of houses joining in. It will be on the 31st and half-term for some so expect a lot out!

Don't we all but at what point do you have to say....its just not happening...if the numbers keep going down, as it is now, what is this saying and what is the solution? Keep building more infrastructure? Maybe the problem is those rolling this out had no idea what the problem was they were trying to solve and just got hooked on the "cycling is the answer" narrative.

Snowy - not entirely correct - he doesn't believe in poorly designed segregated cycling routes that put cyclists in danger and is highlighting the fact that cycle injuries are increasing as a result of those poor designs. Is that not to be welcomed - I know he really is a thorn in the side of Will Norman and the cycle lobby don't like him as a result? Take a look here, prime example. https://twitter.com/VincentStops/status/1712364566137450754?t=Xa2ZgAYyXVkk5lI6Vy1HQA&s=19 Look at that junction at Old Street - it's a mess and the shading of the cycle lane gives the cyclists the impression they have right of way but the Highway Code says they must not pass to the left of a vehicle turning left in front of them. Some of these designs are a recipe for disaster Snowy, I am not arguing about the proportion of spend I am arguing that much of the huge amount of infrastructure that has been put in at great cost to the tax-payer and bus passengers just isn't attracting enough cyclist to suggest it is successful. You have to agree that the DFT research does show cycling is declining though doesn't it - so what's going on, what do you think is going to buck the downward trend in cycling in London?

Earl, I am a cyclist (and someone who has commuted to work on my bike across London so probably well versed in what constitutes aggressive cycling) so I agree people cycling, and more people cycling, is a good thing. But surely you must be even a slightly bit concerned that over £1bn of tax-payers money has been spent on huge swathes of cycling infrastructure in London, which, in turn, is causing delays to buses and challenges for those who use them. Yet despite all this investment and infrastructure the numbers of cyclists in London are decreasing not increasing. Surely that concerns you - that all of the efforts to make cycling more popular are failing? Will Norman lauded a potential ten-fold increase in cyclists post-Covid yet if the numbers continue to decline at the rate they are we will be at the same level as pre-Covid and won't have even reached a one-fold increase. So whilst you aggressively accuse me (be careful of the new forum rules in relation to personal jibes BTW) of being down an anti-bicycle Twitter rabbit hole I am anything but - but I am a pragmatist and realist and the data is indicating something is not working. Any ideas on what you think needs to be done or do you subscribe to the "keep building it and they will come mantra"?

Aggressive cycling, whether intentional or not, is an issue but one that gets diluted if you are able to attract more people from more diverse backgrounds to cycling. The problem is that if the majority of your user group is middle-aged white males on hugely expensive racing bikes then a certain style of cycling is bound to be prevalent (the number of times I have been shouted at for daring to stop at a red-light if it impedes the cyclists behind me and when they overtake you can always predict the kit and the type of bike they are on). Cycle groups, TFL etc are desperately trying to get a broader, more representative, demographic and I suspect trends (nationally) in that regard could be seen from here but I don't have the time to look at it: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1180737/nts0601.ods

Signoria on Lordship Lane is good for paninis etc - cracking breakfast and pasta too if you're there early enough/are hungry enough! Agree Heritage is good too

Ian, the council, during one of the LTN consultations, printed unique codes on the front of the envelopes dropped through people's door that needed to be entered when responding to the consultation so the council could identify that the person responding did actually live on that street - it was around the time of rumours of vested-interest groups like Southwark Cyclists and taxi drivers trying to influence the consultation even if they were from a completely different part of London. The council dropped the plan pretty quickly - I am not sure we ever heard why.

So Kurt, given that you say two of those three are overcome by well maintained cycle infrastructure do you have any explanation why the cycling numbers in London are continuing to decline given the amount of new cycle infrastructure now in place - is it inclement weather or something else?

I think Malumbu is agreeing, even though they seem to be punting the decision to others, that if the numbers aren't being delivered then it has to be looked into. And I think you're right that the positive impact on cycling numbers was a fluctuating statistic but one that was used as the catalyst for increased investment by pro-cycle lobbyists (promises of ten-fold increases) but the long-term trend is that, even after the installation of masses of new infrastructure, cycling growth has stalled (I read recently that Santander bikes saw a 22% drop in usage year-on-year which TFL put down to bad weather) Will Norman and others have built the huge investment and disruption of cycle infrastructure on the back of a premise of "if we build it they will come" but can anyone see anything that they are coming in the numbers needed so perhaps it's time for those installing these measures to do some proper analysis into why London is not turning into their poster-child Amsterdam (of course some of us know why and were posting about it for ages but were being called cynics - or worse).

Yet more diversionary and derailing tactics Malumbu? Admin has been very clear on the rules of this discussion forum so if you have something to add that can be considered part of the discussion go ahead - if not, then please don't post your constant attempts to derail thread after thread - it is becoming very tiresome.... And anyway, given your recent restrictions on posting in certain East Dulwich specific related threads I would have thought you would have welcomed the chance to join a discussion, maybe if we don't want to give you the ability to derail everything we just need to add East Dulwich to the title! 😉 and you will be unable to comment! But all joking aside, and to give you the chance to actually engage in the discussion, maybe let me ask you, yet another, direct question (which I very much suspect you will not answer because you never do) - Malumbu, do you think the significant investment in cycle infrastructure and it's associated impact on other modes of transport can continued to be justified if we don't see a marked upturn in cycling numbers? P.S. My name is Rockets not Rocks - only my close friends get to address me as Rocks! 😉

I think it is widely accepted that the money in Boris' cycling plan did materialise and in Will Norman's most recent cycling plan he was pledging £150m a year to continue the level of spending the Boris administration started. But LTNs are causing problems for buses just as much as the removal of bus lanes more centrally - the TFL vs Dulwich councillors debacle was triggered because TFL dared to publish a report that said the Dulwich LTNs were causing bus delays. And sorry not buying the LTNs aren't cycling infrastructure argument - you're probably going to try and convince me Will Normal gives equal weighting to plans for walking as he does cycling....;-) Heartblock - I agree, allowing buses through LTNs would be a very good idea but given the opposition from the council and their supporters to let emergency vehicles through LTNs it might be a big ask to let buses through.

In 2013 Boris committed to spend £913m over ten years on cycling and there was even more significant investment around Covid in cycling infrastructure. The argument that build more and they will come doesn’t seem to be bearing fruits, there has been a huge amount of infrastructure built around in, out and across London since Covid yet cycling levels are heading close to 2019 numbers in London - that’s not a trend that can continue to sustain the level of investment - the numbers have to be going up and showing a trajectory to get to the ten-fold increase. And the issue with buses is that much of the bus lane infrastructure is being torn out and replaced by cycle lane infrastructure and buses are being forced into the remaining lane with other road traffic - just look at any one of the bridges across the Thames like Blackfriars or Waterloo that used to have dedicated bus lanes and now no longer do have, which is adding to delays. Locally TFL cited the Dulwich LTNs displaced traffic as the cause of bus delays in the Croxted Road/Herne Hill area. Cycling seems to be struggling to break out from the white MAMIL demographic and these trends were being seen before Covid too - with many suggesting that cycling in London had been reaching its natural saturation point years before Covid. Perhaps if there had been a MAMOB (middle aged men on buses) lobby group then buses may not have been so overlooked!

This has nothing to do with whether I am championing cycling or not (your post does, however, read like another one of your barbed attacks and your usual diversionary tactics - that's a positive comment too! ;-)) You're a cyclist too Malumbu so let's put both our valuable experience into the discussion....... Do you have any thoughts on the data presented by the DFT survey - it makes pretty grim reading for Will Norman's "more than ten-fold increase" in cycling in London that he wrote in an op-ed/interview in BikeBiz in May 2020 doesn't it? Do you think there comes a point where you have to admit you can't keep pouring money into a project that clearly isn't delivering against it's stated goals - and one that significantly disrupts other forms of transport (buses) and the growing users of buses whilst doing so? Or is there something else that is missing that needs to be done to get the massive increases in cycling needed to justify the spend and the disruption? Could it be perhaps that the grand vision sold by Will Norman and the cycle lobby when they inserted themselves into the process at all levels selling the notion that London could be the next cycle-equivalent of Amsterdam wasn't ever likely to happen - that it was nothing more than a ludicrous pipe dream that is turning into a very expensive white elephant?

Good on them for giving you the £65 option but yes the irony given they are the ones most vocally shouting about the problems with Royal Mail in the area yet are continuing to use them for this...I presume they emailed that response to you? 😉 I wonder if there are many others who have got the notification late but did not challenge and just paid the full £130 amount?

Sue I agree - it's still not clear from the headline and I think it may still be confusing people as Malumbu clearly wants positive endorsement of the council and councillors so it should mention that in the headline. I thought it is quite interesting that many of the things people are suggesting are either infrastructure, that have been here for generations (parks and open spaces), or services that are out-sourced to other companies (parks and open spaces upkeep - Quadron; waste management - Veolia; leisure centre management - Everything Active - although I realise that was brought back in-house in June of this year).

The DFT's National Travel survey is used to determine policy on transport usage and infrastructure and this year's report made very interesting reading and really begs the question whether local and regional authority investment in transport are focussed in the right places. Now, cards on the table, I read the report and thought it validated my concern that there has been way too much focus on cycling in London which has come at the cost of public transport (buses in particular). So the question is, if these trends outlined in the DFT survey keep becoming reality is it time to admit that the vision of huge increases in cycling Will Norman et al have been selling to justify the £1bn investment in cycling infrastructure may never be realised and now is it now the time for more a pragmatic and balanced approach to road transport policy in the city, and our local area, and a look at how we start giving equal priority to bus travel and other active travel like walking? And let's ground this discussion on the almighty row between TFL and our local councillors on the impact the Dulwich LTNs were having on bus journeys through the area. Here is the report but it is incredibly detailed and it is based on surveys only but there is some fascinating stuff in there, especially considering this is what is used to mould transport policy. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/national-travel-survey-2022 Some highlights when comparing 2022 to 2021: Increases to all modes trip rates nationally compared to 2021 except for cycling and tube. Nationally people are walking more (now higher than 2019 rates) Bus trips up 59% in London (35% outside of London) but still below 2019 numbers Tube use flat year on year and still below 2019 numbers Cycling trip rates now 5% lower than in 2019 nationally from the 2020 peak but those cycling are cycling further Cycling trip rates remained broadly similar between 2002 and 2022, with a slight increase shown in 2020. In 2022, there were 15 cycling trips per person, similar to the previous year (15 trips per person) and 5% lower compared to 2019 (16 trips per person). The relatively small number of cycling trips in the sample means that this series can be volatile, but it has remained between 14 and 20 trips per person per year since 2002. There has been a general upward trend in the average cycling miles travelled from 2002 to 2022, with a sharp increase in 2020. In 2022 there were 57 cycling miles per person travelled which was similar to the previous year (55 miles per person) and 4% higher than in 2019 (54 miles per person). Overall, average miles cycled in 2022 was 46% higher than in 2002 (39 miles per person). Some have taken the data and done some detailed analysis of it for London and I have to agree with Vincent that it must now be time to start asking why there is so much focus on cycling from Will Norman et al when a more pragmatic approach may yield better results for everyone - the ten-fold increase that was mooted by Will Norman is absolutely nowhere to be seen.

In the interests of balance will Malumbu be starting a "the negative things about the council thread" ;-)? I do see a pattern emerging with many of the things people do like though....anyone else see it?

We had a Sunday afternoon delivery as well which was as shocking as it was unexpected! To be fair it was obviously restoring the ying/yang balance as a couple of weeks ago we had also had a birth certificate back from the passport office that was in an envelope with Do Not Bend on it and the postie seemed to have performed origami on it to get it through the post box - which wasn't ideal!

Agree the libraries are good, the parks well maintained and also agree that the Veolia teams are, usually, very good.

A number of people have mentioned, in various threads, some of the things brought up by the Scrutiny Committee on the environment and I just watched it and it was really interesting across a number of areas. Well worth a watch from about 1 hour 30 minutes in. Consultations CPZs E-scooters and e-bikes and the problems many have been having with them Consultations I do wonder if the council is signalling a shift in the way Southwark consult and whether they are going to determine what happens at a local level based on research done at the borough level. We have seen this on the "mandate" for the CPZs where the council claimed that a research document (which had a large proportion of research done by engaging primary school children and students in the north of the borough) was what gave them the mandate for rolling out CPZs in the south of the borough. Listen to what Cllr McAsh says (1 hour 34 minutes) when he says consultations (as they are run now) don't get a cross-section of the borough as those who respond tend to be, and I quote: "whiter, wealthier and more likely to be car owners" and then says they are going ward by ward knocking on doors of 1 in 10 houses on every street. All admirable stuff but I wonder how they record that input - a consultation online has definitive proof of how people responded and look at the lengths they went to try to determine where someone lived in many of the consultations (remember the ill-fated envelope code tied to each street). You can't hide that online response and if you do you could be subject to an FOI and there is a digital trail. It will be interesting to learn how they are selecting and recording the input of those they knock on the doors - remember the council extended the LTN consultation deadline by a couple of weeks and sent Labour activists out to door knock to encourage Labour voters to respond to the consultation. Have they learned lessons from that and now decided to lean-in more on verbal testimony from the people they select for door visits? Interesting Dale Foden's comments of how difficult it is to get people in the south of the borough to give up their cars - there never seems to be any thoughts on why that might be the case and it seems ludicrous to me, if it is the case, that you apply feedback from someone living, working or being schooled, in the north of the borough near a tube station with those living in the south of the borough whose needs are completely different. CPZs Interesting to hear from Cllr McAsh that they have a moral and (perhaps more importantly - my words not his) legal obligation to listen to the views of their residents and I suspect they know the weight of public opinion is against them and I sense this is one of the reasons for the delay in the publishing of the results of the consultation and CPZ rollouts (and probably why they are suggesting the above).

My experience with Southwark planning for an Asgard cycle box in our front garden is well documented so I cannot post here as it was not positive!

Malumbu are you asking for positive things about the borough itself or the council?

But this is a council that does nothing more than to bleat on about the cost of living crisis and inflationary pressures on the money in people's pockets and then come up with this. They are such hypocrites. I think it only fair that they publish where that 50% increase has come from and I bet you it is from poorly sign posted LTN cameras. But always remember, anything this council does in relation to cars is because they think that if you own one you must be super rich and they are trying to rebalance the social injustice of that!

It is beyond shocking and one of the speakers from the affected building did ponder whether Southwark might be going the way of Birmingham and Croydon and may need emergency measures - it sounds as if the budget to rectify these mistakes is going to be huge so where is the money going to come from to do it? Are residents expected to pick up the cost of council ineptitude in the form of higher council tax? Chat to anyone in Croydon after their 15% increase in council tax to see how that feels.

Malumbu, are you bored of it because you aren't a Southwark resident? What has happened here is shameless and reflective of how Southwark treats residents. If people don't complain about it then administrations can get away with it. This only came to light because a resident complained about it, else Southwark would have got away with it. Have you watched the video? Are you happy that a council acts in this way and is there any part of you that thinks Southwark needs to be held accountable for these actions? This has put lives at risk and the residents, whom Labour purports to support, have been treated appallingly. By the way your suggestion to move if you think a council has been treating other residents badly is a joke right? To be fair your post looks like another brazen attempt to disrupt and divert a legitimate discussion thread to your own agenda and I think admin has been more than clear to everyone about that.