Rockets

I got the same U-turn email for the Village area - the weight of feeling/Labour HQ pressure as we head into an election must have been huge. He does, however, suggest a small part of the Village area will get one - will be interesting to see which one and on what justification. Maybe this is the epi-centre of the pro-LTN lobby in the Village!!! 😉 Given the consultation document gave zero opportunity to respond that you didn't want a CPZ I would love to know how the council came to this conclusion..... Also very interesting that the next consultation on those smaller areas in Dulwich Village will "ask residents in each of these new areas if they want controlled parking or not" - something that was severely lacking in the initial consultation. In my opinion I think they got scared and realised the consultation was not sufficient to pass legal muster and scrutiny have analysed the data and think they can get a small area to agree to it and will use that to start parking pressure in other areas. Dear resident, I am writing to let you know the council will not be going ahead with the previous proposals to implement controlled parking across the whole Dulwich Village area. Instead we will shortly be consulting on a much smaller zone where resident feedback and our understanding of parking pressure and traffic levels in the area suggest the need is greatest. I want to thank all the residents who contacted us about this. We have listened to you and are changing our consultation plans. The council is committed to the aspirations set out in our Streets for People strategy, including making it easier for residents to switch from using their cars to making journeys by foot, by cycling and on public transport. Controlled parking can bring many benefits for local people when introduced in the right places in the right way. However, I recognise that the council’s previous proposals fell short. Through the course of the consultation, residents in many areas told us that they did not need or want controlled parking. We listened to these concerns and undertook more work to understand parking pressure and traffic levels in these areas. This work supports the view of residents that controlled parking is currently only needed in some parts of the Dulwich Village area. I thank all the residents who contacted us about this. I also want to thank your local ward councillors who have spent much of the last few weeks representing the concerns of local people, and setting out the need for a different approach. We have listened to you and are changing our plans. The council’s previous proposals were not the right ones. We are learning the lessons from this and are sorry we got it wrong. We will shortly be consulting on a new proposal to implement controlled parking in just part of Dulwich Village. This new consultation will ask residents in each of these new areas if they want controlled parking or not. I want to again thank all the residents who have contacted us about this. We greatly value the time that you have taken to share your views. Yours sincerely, Cllr James McAsh

Earl, you're wrong again I am afraid. Look at the link I shared and then click down to the links that say data tables. It's all in there, data for London, data for every part of the country - maybe you can extrapolate the data for London and see if you agree with Vincent's summary? The TFL report you shared is flagging an increase for one week in October, comparing one week in 2022 to the same week in 2019. Hurrah, a 40% increase for a single week but why do you think TFL, the authority responsible for the build out of huge amounts of cycle infrastructure, chose that week? Perhaps it was randomly selected....;-) So again, for you to claim that cycling is up by 40% on the basis of that stat is wrong, misleading and needs to be caveated. Are there more cyclists, of course there are? Are there double, triple or quadruple the number than before - nope? To be a success does the cycle infrastructure need to be attracting double, triple or quadruple the numbers - absolutely yes? Are there fewer cyclists than during the pandemic and are the number of cyclists decreasing year on year according to research - yes? Is there disruption caused to buses by the building of more infrastructure? Yes. Are more kids cycling to school? Yes. Did many of them switch from walking to cycling to make their journeys? Yes. Is that a good thing? Yes as it gets then cycling but no in terms of active travel as the very best form is walking. Now the question we should all be pondering is, is the focus on cycle infrastructure delivering the results necessary to sustain that level of investment and is the impact on other modes warranted? We seem a very long way off the mooted 10-fold increase.......

Earl you are wrong. The DfT report does look at London and the results taken from the data in the report are pasted above - both of which show a continued decline in cycling in London post-pandemic - you can see average cycle trips per year is just above pre-pandemic levels but below those from 2014-15 and miles travelled as a proportion of all trips continuing its year on year drop since the pandemic. And you're "doing a Will" with the 40% figure. That is not an annual figure but TFL comparing two (as far as I am aware undefined) periods of time in the Autumn of 2019 with the Autumn of 2022. It's a bit like us comparing the number of people cycling last Thursday (when it was torrential rain and Storm Ciaran) to those cycling this Thursday (when the weather is set to be much better) - a massive increase between the two dates but no way indicative of whether there a more cyclists per se.

Yes absolutely 100% but the current measures being installed are not delivering anywhere close to what some claim or some promised or what is needed. Additionally, the negative impact on other transport modes (public transport in particular) and the people who use those modes is huge. And remember these conclusions have been reached by a cross-party parliamentary committee - so not some angry right-wing rag - and they say: There has been no sustained increase in cycling rates, and fewer children now walk to school than when targets were set. That is a devasting inditement of the failure of the £2.3bn spend on active travel. Some of us could see what was happening - others didn't want to see it or refused to acknowledge it. And P.S. Malumbu - I am not angry (thanks for your concern) I am sad that a once in a lifetime opportunity to make positive active travel change has seemingly been wasted because those who were given the power to initiate the change (many of those who mentioned in your post) put their own cycle-centric ideology ahead of a more balanced pragmatic approach. And I suspect that as the Tories start flinging mud ahead of the general election that a lot of those who have been part of the machine will come into the cross-hairs (and that they will all try to blame one another for the debacle as they look to avoid being accountable). Fasten your seatbelts, fasten your bike helmet and charge your e-bikes and cargo bikes - this is going to be a very bumpy ride.

There are some at the customer service counter at M&S as well.

It's all starting to unravel - some of us on here have been saying for a long time that these measures have not been working and that the numbers being put out by activist researchers and councils weren't right and now the reality is coming to light....let's see how those who have been cheerleaders for these measures and responsible for the debacle try to spin their way out of it and take zero personal responsibility for what has happened (or not happened in these cases)... Unfortunately, too many have been led down the garden path and hoodwinked by vested-interest lobby groups.

The way it is worded suggests these are long-term sick? I suspect it is very deliberate that Royal Mail have added that to their quote as it seems a bit out of context - are they trying to tell us something?

What is the Royal Mail referring to in relation to their comment below? Return to work - from what, or am I missing something? To support the health of our employees and assist them in their return to work, we have introduced a wellbeing programme which provides colleagues with free, confidential, and independent healthcare support, including unlimited 24/7 access to an online GP.

Malumbu - a reminder you have been warned not to try and divert threads. This thread is about whether the cycle-first policy has been working. Now a parliamentary cross-party committe has said that despite £2.3bn spent on active travel measures: There has been no sustained increase in cycling rates, and fewer children now walk to school than when targets were set. So despite many coming on here assuring us there are more people cycling we have seen one report from the DfT and a report from the cross-party committee contradicting that position. The active travel measures aren't working are they - it all looks like its been a massive waste of public funds that hasn't delivered on its promises. Who do you think needs to be held accountable? I am afraid the DfT report suggests otherwise.

What was I saying.....and so it starts and now look for the government to pass the buck to the likes of TFL and local authorities on how they have been investing the billions: https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/127/public-accounts-committee/news/198260/active-travel-government-programme-offtrack-as-funding-reductions-hold-back-progress/#:~:text=The Government is not on,travel%2C including cycling and walking. Quote from report: The report further warns that the impact of £2.3bn in funding for active travel infrastructure remains unclear. DfT’s efforts to increase active travel have seen disappointingly slow progress. Objectives include a doubling of cycling rates, and a 6 percentage point increase in the proportion of children walking to school. There has been no sustained increase in cycling rates, and fewer children now walk to school than when targets were set.

Are you referring to the Our Healthy Streets programme?

Was anyone predicting a massive jump in car sales post pandemic? Maybe, like house prices, the Covid-initiated cycle boom was never sustainable and predictions of a ten-fold increase were just misguided, fanciful nonsense from those with vested-interests propping up their own agendas. The problem is that the Covid cycle boom was used to set transport policy for London - do we now need to have a reset and rethink given that it clearly isn't being sustained? Isla bikes are brilliant and it is a real shame that no new ones will be made but their struggles, and those of many in the cycle industry, shows the real challenge now - if cycling can't break out of low single figure numbers for percentage share of transport modes then it will always remain a niche transport method and you cannot build your whole transport policy around it - and I don't think anyone can argue that cycling hasn't been the starting point for all of Will and Sadiq's road transport planning and policy since Covid.

DulvilleRes - it's coming from all the data being published that shows that cycling in London is declining from it's Covid peak and, if the current trajectory continues, will likely be lower than pre-Covid soon. And Snowy - they're not tropes but uncomfortable truths about what is happening in cycling right now - surely it's better for people to open their eyes and acknowledge something isn't working and address it before it is too late - the "build it and they will come" approach is clearly not working? If the destination and goal is to seize on the opportunity of Will Norman's proclamation of a potential ten-fold increase in cycling and three years later you have failed to deliver a one-fold increase (and your numbers are dropping year-on-year) surely the path being taken is not the correct one?

Ermmm….https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/oct/27/uk-childrens-cycle-maker-islabikes-to-shut-after-nearly-18-years They cite a “difficult and challenging time for the cycle industry”. Van Moof “tech bros…..who overinflated its value”…there have been a lot of investors who jumped into cycle companies during Covid….i wonder why….https://bikebiz.com/mayors-streetspace-plan-could-see-cycling-increased-tenfold-post-lockdown/ Problem is cycling in London (for example) is struggling to break a one-fold increase and the numbers are declining from their Covid peak (although the DfT report does show those who are cycling are cycling more in London - which is good) What can be done? I don’t know. Maybe the conditions will never exist where huge swathes of the population will jump on bikes, maybe there are just too many barriers to entry to create the tipping point no matter how much infrastructure is put in (when I started cycling there was no real infrastructure in place and this was during the boom years of cycling growth) and you can’t just keep investing money to support predominantly white middle-class men cycling if that comes at the expense of others who may use other forms of transport that are negatively impacted. Maybe instead of having Will Norman dictating policy we need someone a little more pragmatic - he, and his supporters, have been way too cycle-centric since the outset- often at the expense of other forms of transport. The problem is much of the cycle lobby was installed to positions of influence and have been able to dictate a somewhat myopic view of London’s post-Covid transport vision - aided and abetted by cycle-centric active travel “researchers”, lobbyists and media. Many of the articles on the troubles of the cycling industry suggest the biggest declines have been in the sales of children’s bikes and if that is the case then that is a big worry as those are the next generation of cyclists who aren’t getting on a bike.

I think it has been delayed...pending the outcome of the election......

Unfortunately a lot of cycle retailers and manufacturers are struggling right now because demand has slumped - Islabikes went under last week, VanMoof has gone under, Halfords, in it's 22/23 quarterly report said the market for bikes was down 20% year on year. The British Bicycle Association said that bike sales in 2022 were the lowest in the UK for 20 years. It all makes for very grim reading and clearly underlines how the promises of a ten-fold increase in cycling were utterly baseless and how those questioning the DfT report, whilst trying to convince themselves (and us) that cycling is booming may well be misguided. All the data suggests the Covid cycling boom is well and truly over. https://road.cc/content/news/uk-bike-sales-fall-lowest-level-20-years-299457 https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2023/08/11/cycle-industrys-collapse-after-bike-boom-ends-this-year-say-analysts/?sh=196ad72c66d9 https://road.cc/content/news/moore-large-enters-liquidation-299931

It is not - Brenchley Gardens is SE23 - all of the houses on that road have SE23 postcodes - it's the same as Canonbie on the other side. Forest Hill Road is in SE22 but your post is about Brenchley Gardens.

Malumbu, this thread you have started seems to be more about your personal concerns about Brenchley Gardens in particular so you might want to change the thread title or move it to a Forest Hill forum. P.S. I am glad you are sharing your huge amounts of knowledge on road management and driver behaviour with us. Mr Chicken has engineering covered (although has been significantly muted by admins new behaviour rules) and now you are our self-proclaimed road management and driver behaviour expert - we know who to turn to in case of questions.

Earl- the DfT report is used to determine travel policy and investment and those declines since Covid show that Will Norman's declaration of a possible ten-fold increase in cycling was fanciful at best. I am hoping that more balanced policy-makers will take these trends and start taking a more pragmatic approach to transport investment that doesn't overweight on one form - as Sadiq, Will and TFL have. You quote rush-hour and yes that's great (but to be fair it has always been busy) but what about the rest of the time - much of the cycle infrastructure sits empty whilst buses struggle in traffic after the removal of bus lanes? First mate is spot on - cycling is not massively up and quotes like 40% increase (as a suggestion that it is an annual or overall increase) are wrong and misleading. But many within the cycle lobby are happy to mislead the public (especially when they are justifying the huge amounts of tax-payers money being invested - in Enfield Will Norman quoted 38% increase to justify the bew cycle lane which was a single month increase comparing a dry June with a very wet June and the actual increase was nearer a 10% overall annual increase). Cycling went up massively during Covid but has seen nothing but marked declines ever since and that is a fact. And a worrying fact for those devoting so much of London transport infrastructure to cycling - the cycling revolution just doesn't seem to be happening and it is about time people started asking why and what do they need to do differently.

The 40% increase figure is when comparing a very specific period of time in the autumn (2022 vs 2019) so is not a stat that can be used as Earl is as a generic "there's been a 40% increase in cycling" because it is time specific. It's an important clarification and a trap many, Will Norman included, on the pro-cycle lobby fall into time and time again - Will Norman has been criticised for claiming a 38% annual increase in cycling in Enfield that was a cherry-picked month on month comparison stat which is nowhere near the actual annual figure. The DfT data clearly shows a continued year-on-year decline in cycling in London since the pandemic. It is still higher than pre-pandemic levels but if the declines are not arrested then it will likely fall beneath pre-pandemic levels in the future (according to the DfT report outside of London is already back below pre-pandemic levels) - but clearly there's no sign of the ten-fold increase mooted by Will Norman. And yes, Dulwich Square may be busier with cyclists but that microcosm is not being repeated across the capital. I do wonder what more can be done because the current strategies in place seem not to be delivering.

I think there was a thread on this same loading bay a while ago and where someone had experienced the same thing. Loading bays are always a bit of an easy one for parking wardens as the rules are not crystal clear - and certainly no reason for the warden to presume that just because you aren't in a van that you aren't loading or unloading. Being there for 15 minutes though does probably weaken the argument because you are not allowed to park or wait in a loading bay but surely you have to park to be able to load..... I think that bay is rich pickings for the wardens.....

Latest One Dulwich update....no surprises that Southwark has not responded to the DFT questionnaire on LTNs........you can draw your own conclusions as to why..... One Dulwich Campaign Update | 16 Oct Southwark Council not co-operating with Government LTNs Review Last month, after the Government ordered a review of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, the DfT (Department for Transport) sent all councils questionnaires about any LTNs they had installed since 2020, and the consultation process used before they were built. Southwark Council is not co-operating. In response to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request asking for a copy of their answers, Southwark replied: “Councils were requested and not instructed to complete the LTN survey. Southwark Council did not complete the questionnaire.” One Dulwich has now written to the DfT asking how we can submit evidence to the LTNs Review and inviting them to send us a copy of the questionnaire so that we can fill in the answers based on the evidence we have. Discrimination against Blue Badge holders at the Dulwich Village junction Several Blue Badge holders spoke to Southwark News about the increased pain, social isolation, and poorer quality of life caused by the 24/7 closure of the Dulwich Village junction. The article has already received 5,300 views. We hear that Southwark also plans to close Gilkes Place 24/7, with no exemptions for Blue Badge holders, despite having previously promised access to Dulwich Village from the Calton Avenue area. Closing date for objections – Ref. ‘TMO2324-011 Giles Place’ – to [email protected] by 19 October. We still haven’t received a response from Helen Hayes MP to our email of 2 June in which we asked her not just to pass on to Southwark Council the concerns raised by vulnerable residents but to actively champion their needs. Separately, we hear that she recently told a Blue Badge holder that a local campaign group had raised tens of thousands of pounds but “couldn't find any professional that supported the assertion that the junction could safely operate a timed closure model”. If anyone knows who this campaign group is, please get in touch. Best wishes, The One Dulwich Team

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?