Earl Aelfheah

You're repeating yourself. I've stated numerous times that I support the removal of parking on Lordship Lane. Do you? The CPZ plans (which I have no view on) don't effect parking on lordship lane in any way - which is true of 101 other schemes. You seem to think this is a reason to object to them - that doesn't' make sense.

Really interesting debate - thanks for posting.

That isn't answering my question is it? It's answering a question no one asked you. And yes, you are being slippery.

I have clearly stated more than once that I support the removal of some parking on Lordship Lane, both to increase the space for pedestrians and also to improve bus passage along the road - so it seems odd that he keeps asking me the same question. Again, are you not reading my posts before asking me questions? Also, is there any chance of either you or Rocks ever answering a question, without posing a different question?

Do you ever answer a straight question, rather than asking another one? The slipperiness is exhausting.

What does that mean? You regularly kick up dust. So you imply (always insinuation), that cycle lanes are a major factor in congestion and in slowing buses.... and? Are you saying they should be rolled back? Are you saying that they have been successful in growing cycling numbers, or are you sticking to the position that they have minimal impact? Do you agree with the recommendations made by Travel Watch regarding how to speed up buses in their report? What is your view on these matters?

Yes it’s the case that I would like to see the reallocation of parking space.

I've said that, yes I would like to see less space allocated to parked cars on Lordship Lane, multiple times. Do you ever answer a question, without a question? What is your view on this?

I don't' get this point. I should oppose a scheme that doesn't impact parking on lordship lane in any way, on the ground of it's impact on parking on Lordship Lane? How about I just support the removal of parking on lordship lane, as I do? No, you haven't. Why don't you just say what you think? Do you agree with the report Travel Watch produced? You seemed to think their words should be given great weight, but now are being coy. What is your view on bike lanes - do you want them removed? You've spoken about them a lot on this thread, but seem like Rockets to fall back on innuendo, instead of stating a firm opinion. On 'local level interventions' - do you support the removal of parking on Lordship Lane, making the bus lanes 24/7 and enforcing them more strictly, or is your concern about bus times just 'theoretical' (or perhaps only relevant in so far as it can be used to rail against people travelling by bicycle)?

Why do you think this will have an impact on Lordship Lane buses? There is no additional parking being proposed, or have I missed something? Are you supporting the removal of parking on Lordship Lane, as you're obviously concerned about the impact it has on buses?

How is it a 'swerve'? I wasn't that interested in the CPZ, because as I said at the time, I consider it primarily an issue for those who live on the effected streets (which I don't). There is no proposal to change the amount of road space given over to parking on Lordship Lane that I have seen. Had there been a proposal to increase it, I would have strongly opposed. Had it looked to reduce it, I would have been more actively supportive. But it makes no changes either way. I have said that I would like to see some parking removed from Lordship Lane. I don't get your point? Again, it would be good if you and Rocks could occasionally respond to questions posed by others instead of ignoring them and posing new ones. That really is 'swerving'. Do you support any of the recommendations made by Travel Watch (who you've described as 'the experts')? What is it you're calling for with regards cycle lanes - are you after their removal, or do you support them?

I am just not that interested in the CPZ debate. I already said that if there is a proposal to increase the amount of road space given over to parking on Lordship Lane I would not support it. I don’t believe that has been proposed, but happy to be corrected.

No, they were explicitly asked whether they agreed with TfL's opinion and if there were any additional factors at play. They did agree with TfL and they added that there were additional factors - road works and reallocation of some road space. They also produced a detailed report, which you don't seem to want to talk about, or respond to. There has been an analysis, by Travel Watch - their report was submitted to the London Assembly and they were invited to speak. You seem to want to ignore their recommendations. Why? What is it that you are calling for with regards bike lanes exactly? Are you calling for their removal?

Nope. I uploaded the email exchanges to chatGPT and asked for it to provide an objective summary. There is no conspiracy. I'm not arguing anything. I'm telling you what the full email exchanges say - not cherry picking bits and taking them out of context to try and prop up something I want to believe. As for the study, it was curtailed because there were too few new LTNs and the sample size was too small to carry out the planned analysis of their impact on travel behaviour. Two follow-up waves also failed to provide enough data. Publishing the reports was deemed unnecessary because they were highly technical and would require significant effort to make accessible for the public and the findings offered little new insight, were largely inconclusive, and could even cause confusion. Yet you continue to discount a huge body of high quality research, giving greater weight to a single, incomplete study, that hasn't been formally published or peer reviewed. Sorry? Is it 'activist research', or important research you're putting a lot of weight on? And btw (as there has been some successful deflection of the point), the cheese shop's closure had nothing to do with changes to the road layout in Dulwich Village 🤣

Any chance that either you or Rocks could address even one of the questions I've asked before constantly posing new ones? I'm against any more parking on Lordship Lane, but I don't know that is what's been proposed. I would like some parking removed to allow for pavement widening and perhaps slight widening of the carriageway. This would improve the experience for shoppers and speed up buses. I would also like to see 24/7 bus lanes and enforcement of them (they are regularly blocked by people parked in 'loading' bays). Interestingly, this aligns with the recommendations in the Travel Watch report. Do you support the recommendations made by Travel Watch? And what is it you're actually calling for re. cycle lanes? Do we want them removed? Do you welcome the increases in people cycling, or do you think it's a negative development?

I just went back and had a listen again. It's pointed out that TfL say slower bus times are caused by congestion, emergency incidents, demonstrations and the mechanical performance of the bus fleet and they're asked what other factors might have a role. So it's quite a specific question. It's suggested that an increase in roadworks and their management is a significant additional factor. The reallocation of road space is then mentioned. But it's relevant that these are discussed in the context of 'additional factors', the others being taken as read. I guess my issue is that whilst there is no doubt that some bike lanes will have had an impact, there are almost no segregated bike lanes on major routes in SE London. There are however, all of the issues explicitly called out in Travel Watch's report - lack of bus priority, limited bus lane hours, parking, congestion. I think it's cynical to ignore the recommendations of their report, but to to pull out one 'additional factor' discussed, amongst others, and give it undue prominence on a thread about increases in bike numbers. Especially when it's done by someone who has switched their argument from: bike lanes don't work, they're not increasing cycling numbers, to; cycling numbers have increased, but nowhere near as much as a target that never existed said it would, to; Representative from Travel Watch say reallocation of space (including to pedestrians) is one factor in slowing some buses and that's huge... but I'm opposed to all their recommendations for improving bus times. Do you support the recommendations made by Travel Watch? And what is it, ultimately that people are calling for? Do we want bike lanes removed? The increases in cycling reversed? Less space allocated to pedestrians? More people in cars?

I apologise if I misattributed Rockets wording to you. I may have got confused. The point I was making is that the primary cause of carriageway pressure is clearly not bicycles. There just aren't enough of them on the road, they aren't big enough, they simply are not the cause of traffic jams. It's clearly ridiculous to think that they're a significant factor in causing congestion when the thousands of large vehicles are very literally the congestion. I also do not understand why the recommendations from research report that Travel Watch published aren't really being commented on, by someone who says they go with their 'expert opinion' on these matters. Do you agree with them or not?

The primary cause of carriageway pressure is motor vehicles. That makes it sound like they're saying it's bicycles. They're not. You can actually read their detailed report if you're interested, I've listed the recommendations from that report above. I don't believe they mention LTNs at all, and frankly buses shouldn't be doing more than 20mph through London, even if it were remotely possible. I don't know what quote you're accusing me of meddling with. If I quote someone directly, it's clearly posted as a quote. If I've paraphrased something someone has said, that's quite different. Are you OK? Maybe just go back and read. I’ve said, look at the first post on the previous page. Here is the report from Travel Watch that they were at the Assembly to discuss: https://www.londontravelwatch.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/The-next-stop-Making-Londons-buses-better.pdf

So the argument against bike lanes has gone from: They don't work, they're not increasing cycling numbers, to; cycling numbers have increased, but nowhere near as much as a target that never existed said it would, to; Representative from Travel Watch say reallocation of space (including to pedestrians) is a factor in slowing some buses. I'm now concerned about just bicycles based on what they've said yet oppose all the recommendations they made for improving bus times (removing parking, giving buses priority, making bus lanes 24/7 and tightening enforcement). ... and we're ignoring evidence on the increasing size of motor vehicles year on year. Have I got that about right? I can't work out whether your being sarcastic, or you're actually apologising. If it's the latter, thanks. If the former - look at the first post on the previous page (although I'm fairly sure I've answered this more than once).

Look at the top of the previous page 🙄

Can you name one? You did complain across multiple posts for almost a year because you were fined in a bus lane. 🤷‍♂️

The email exchange has been misrepresented. On the substance - it’s one incomplete study (from someone you have repeatedly disparaged as lacking credibility - unfairly in my opinion), and hasn’t been peer reviewed. As for these folk from online ‘petrol head’ forums who seem to spend their life wasting the time of public bodies with constant FOIs, determined to find conspiracies where there are none and / or loopholes for their traffic offending - they need to grow up imo.

Yes. buses regularly get held up behind traffic, outside of peak hours, when an operational bus lane would allow them to pass. And the problem of ever wider vehicles means roads that previously functioned as two-way streets no longer do - with vehicles having to wait to let each other pass, slowing everything down.

Travel Watch (who appear in that clip on the other thread) recommend: Increasing the operating hours of existing bus lanes and enforcing them Maintaining and not removing existing bus lanes when implementing new road schemes. Undertaking a comprehensive signal timing review to prioritise buses. Continuing to develop other elements of bus priority, such as bus gates and removal of parking spaces in appropriate locations. Implementing the second phase of the Superloop network and continuing to expand it whenever possible so that more current and potential passengers can benefit from its transformational approach to travelling by bus in London. Better co-ordination of roadworks, for example, through the expansion of the Bus Sense scheme to all London boroughs and continued use of the ICS. I would also suggest action to discourage ‘car spreading / bloat’

I had a read through some of those emails in context, and you're not fairly portraying the thread imo. There is no evidence of any sort of cover up. Their main concern seems to be that it's a bit technical and they don't have time to do the work to make it accessible / ready for publication before the busy pre-election period. There is also the question of whether they'll continue with the research and so whether it's worth publishing at all. Ironically that reference to FOI expresses the pressure they feel to publish quickly even though it's a very dense / technical report and they need to do some comms work, because otherwise 'the usual suspects' will FOI it (and no doubt make mischief / misrepresent it - my interpretation not their words). For those (nearly everyone) who isn't going to bother scanning through the very long email chain, here is an objective ChatGPT produced summary of what's in it: Report Draft and Feedback: University of Westminster (UoW) delivered a draft of the Wave 2 Travel & Places report in March 2024 (101 pages, mostly appendices). TfL team planned internal review and feedback before Easter, with a core team discussion scheduled. Key Findings and Comments: Positive result: proximity to Cycleways correlates with increased cycling. Some technical language flagged for simplification; minor edits suggested (terminology, clarity on methodology). Questions raised about the 10-minute buffer used for analysis versus usual 400m metric. Future Surveys: Debate on whether to conduct a third wave in 2024; consensus leaning toward stopping further surveys due to limited expected new infrastructure and diminishing returns. Concerns about methodology impact if a “gap year” occurs. Publication Strategy: Original reports considered too technical for public release. Proposal to publish a TiL-style summary report plus data tables in Excel. Discussion on whether to include methodologies in appendices or publish original reports for transparency. FOI risk noted—may need to publish all findings eventually. Resource and Funding Issues: Collating 300–400 tables from three reports flagged as significant work; may require extra funding and time. Options: use spare budget from active travel monitoring or request IDP to cover costs. Next Steps: Internal planning session suggested to clarify approach before committing to UoW for extra work. Communications and timing difficult due to pre-election period; aim for summer publication if proceeding.