More big increases in cycling

[Earl Aelfheah]

In summary. There have been significant increases in cycling numbers, a trend sustained over many years. This is the result, at least in significant part, of a relatively modest investment (somewhere around 1% of TfL's annual budget) in better cycling infrastructure.

And yes, it should put to bed the claims that have been made by a handful of contributors that cycle lanes are some extravagant waste of money, and that cycling hasn't increased as a result.

Edited Wednesday at 13:48 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

54 minutes ago, exdulwicher said:

Growth rates will fluctuate day to day, week to week, month to month etc which is why you look at overall trends.

Clearly year by year too - it's why things tend to be analysed annually as it more clearly shows trends.

Still, no-one can offer any reason why there has been a significant change in the growth rate - as usual everyone seems very keen to shoot the messenger and ignore the message! 

 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

It’s been answered. But also it’s not an honest question. It’s just an attempt to minimise what is a success story, as is the out of context reference to past statements made during lockdown, and the language of ‘declines’ .

These constant tactics of rhetorical framing, cherry picking and inuendo are so tedious. Why don't you tell us what you think it is. You obviously have a view.

Edited Wednesday at 14:38 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

48 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

In summary. There have been significant increases in cycling numbers, a trend sustained over many years. This is the result, at least in significant part, of a relatively modest investment (somewhere around 1% of TfL's annual budget) in better cycling infrastructure.

But it would also be true to say (to address the pedants amongst you) that there has been growth in cycle stages but between 2022 and 2024 cycle stage growth slowed dramatically and then  between 2024 and 2025 increased massively (but no-one seems to know why). And that 43% growth in cycle stages from 2019 and 2025 is nowhere near the tenfold increase touted by the Mayor and TFL when they began their investment of around £800m in cycle infrastructure in 2021.

 

4 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

These constant tactics of framing, cherry picking and inuendo are so tedious.

Again, that's really rich coming from you. You have a nerve! 😉

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

Commuting into London also dipped massively post lockdown. The same pattern (even a more stark one) can be observed with other forms of transport over the same time period. 

Lot's of businesses have been asking their staff to 'return to the office', and that's accelerated this year.

There is also the massive popularity of bike hire schemes, enabled by cycling infrastructure that makes it 'less scary' to bike.

But mostly, you're refusing to see the wood for the trees and cherry picking data points (what a shock). The trend over time has actually been remarkably consistent (see the graph I posted). 

5 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Again, that's really rich coming from you. You have a nerve! 😉

I always say what I mean and usually point to evidence. Why don't you? What do you think is the 'cause' of this supposed 'significant change in the growth rate'?

Edited Wednesday at 14:44 by Earl Aelfheah

[exdulwicher]

7 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Clearly year by year too - it's why things tend to be analysed annually as it more clearly shows trends.

Still, no-one can offer any reason why there has been a significant change in the growth rate - as usual everyone seems very keen to shoot the messenger and ignore the message! 

I've given you several reasons but as usual you're weaving around with insinuations rather than asking actual questions or stating your own views.

Here's the document:

https://content.tfl.gov.uk/travel-in-london-2024-active-travel-trends-acc.pdf

TfL themselves highlight fluctuations and changes in travel behaviour noting for example (page 9)
in 2023 the annual demand on Santander Cycles saw a drop of 26 per cent from the previous year. On closer inspection, it is seen that this drop occurred only for demand from casual users (that is, those who are not registered members), while hires by members continued to increase (by three per cent between 2022 and 2023).

Key features behind some of the data (page 14)
However, in recent years there has been a steady and substantial decrease in the proportion of cycling trips for shopping or personal business. This is in line with the decline in trip rates for shopping or personal business observed overall (regardless of mode of transport).

What it's clearly showing is that shopping habits have changed (thanks Amazon!) and fewer people are making shopping trips overall (which also means fewer people cycling to the shops). 

There's all sorts of this wider context in every part of the data but you're fixating on an apparent short-term decline and arguing about percentages - I'm not even clear on what point you're actually trying to make.

12 minutes ago, Rockets said:

And that 43% growth in cycle stages from 2019 and 2025 is nowhere near the tenfold increase touted by the Mayor and TFL when they began their investment of around £800m in cycle infrastructure in 2021.

Most of it was cut! 

The National Audit Office said that investment of £7bn over the CWIS2 (Cycing & Walking Investment Strategy) period was required to meet two of the four CWIS2 2025 targets and come close to meeting the other two.

Government initially committed to spend £3.8bn through CWIS2, of which only just over a third (£1.3bn) was ring-fenced for active travel. Spending just £3.8bn would effectively result in all four 2025 objectives being missed by a large margin.

The UK Government were aware from 2022 that their own CWIS2 objectives would not come close to being met, even before it reduced the funding further still, to around £3 billion, in a Written Ministerial Statement on 9 March 2023.

This included a dramatic reduction in the amount of dedicated funding (which is primarily capital funding for local authorities’ Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plans). Ringfenced funding for the final two years of CWIS2 (i.e. 2023/4 and 2024/5) was cut by £233m, from £488m to £250m (of which only £100m is capital funding). This has massively exacerbated the sense of uncertainty within local authorities to deliver the Government’s cycling and walking ambitions.

This is also affected by the previous decades of austerity which hollowed out council back-room functions (like Legal, Procurement, HR etc) to the bone which means that every scheme going through is delayed because there's limited capacity to check it all, hire the relevant people, go through the contracts and then deliver on it. By the time it's all gone through, costs have gone up by 20% so what's delivered then gets cut / redesigned / watered down midway through. It's a woefully inefficient way of doing things. 

In short - yes, if the funding required had actually been delivered (rather than being grandly announced and then successively cut back), if the designs and ambitions had been as transformational as required than there could easily have been a tenfold increase. But tinkering around the edges and taking 5 years to deliver a hundred square metres of public realm in Dulwich is not "transformational"...

(don't get me wrong, it's good but it's nowhere close to the speed or scale required to deliver a tenfold increase).

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

In summary. There have been significant increases in cycling numbers, a trend sustained over many years. This is the result, at least in significant part, of a relatively modest investment (somewhere around 1% of TfL's annual budget) in better cycling infrastructure.

But it would also be true to say (to address the pedants amongst you) that there has been growth in cycle stages but between 2022 and 2024 cycle stage growth slowed dramatically and then  between 2024 and 2025 increased massively (but no-one seems to know why). And that 43% growth in cycle stages from 2019 and 2025 is nowhere near the tenfold increase touted by the Mayor and TFL when they began their investment of around £800m in cycle infrastructure in 2021.

@Earl Aelfheah yes or no will suffice. It is true to say that isn't it?

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I always say what I mean and usually point to evidence. Why don't you? What do you think is the 'cause' of this supposed 'significant change in the growth rate'?

I don't know that was why I was asking the cycle experts and protagonists on here - to see if anyone knew. Normally there's someone who has the inside track on what is happening in the world of cycling and quick to laud increases like that. It's not Santander as that is still at the lower levels after casual users declined. 

 

Your good friends the LCC had a guess at what was driving it:

https://lcc.org.uk/news/1-5-million-cycled-journeys-daily-woo-hoo/

 

Why is cycling booming?

Until we see a lot more detail from TfL with their next full Travel In London report, it’s difficult to assess exactly what’s going on, but we’d suggest that the growth in cycling comes down to two major themes…

1. Dockless hire

We have heard several times that ‘gig economy’ cycling for companies such as Uber Eats and Deliveroo now accounts for circa 10 percent of all cycling in London – obviously though this is a relatively small number of riders each doing lots of journeys daily.

But a second circa 10 percent is now accounted for by dockless hire cycle journeys from users of Lime, Forest, Voi and other operators’ bikes.

Both types of riders and approaches are undeniably causing issues for Londoners, some serious and significant, but also both are broadly part of a revolution for movement away from private motor vehicles and towards more and a wider range of people cycling more for ‘everyday’ journeys.

 

2. Rollout of cycle infrastructure

It’s impossible to tell exactly for now how much the growth in cycling is down to dockless etc. and how much is down to TfL and London’s councils rollout of more cycling infrastructure (as well as the lag from that already delivered to people changing behaviour).

But TfL’s release says that the ‘strategic cycle network’ of TfL-signed ‘Cycleways’ now stands at 431km, up from 90km in 2016. The role infrastructure plays anecdotally chimes with the growth visible for central, inner and outer London.

2 hours ago, exdulwicher said:

Most of it was cut! 

Are you sure? I have read reports (many of them from TFL) that in the 2019/20 year they invested £147m, then £119m, £130m, £160m in the following years - I think this is why many quote the total figure at around £800m.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I'm sorry, but the Mayor did not promise a tenfold increase as a condition to "get" a specific £800 million investment:

• In December 2016, the Mayor pledged a record £770 million investment in cycling initiatives over five years (equating to about £154 million annually), which was near the spending levels of cycling-friendly nations like Denmark and the Netherlands (I don't believe this actually happened by the way).
• The idea of a potential "tenfold" increase in cycling emerged later during the pandemic as a potential outcome of the new Streetspace policies, not as a target tied to securing a specific £800 million fund. 

There was a concern in May 2020 (when we had no vaccination for COVID and were due to come out of lockdown), that should social distancing remain in place and demand returned to pre-lockdown levels, London's public transport capacity would potentially be reduced to a fifth of pre-crisis levels. That would leave millions of journeys a day needing to be made by other means. The mayor said at the time that "If people were to switch even a small fraction of those journeys to cars London risks grinding to a halt".

They proposed an extension to the bike network and extended pavements, to accommodate a possible ten-fold increase in cycling and five-fold increase in walking compared to pre-COVID levels should demand return and social distancing remain in place - accommodate a possible increase, not create it. As it turned out, demand didn't immediately return and the development and roll out of vaccines removed the need for social distancing to remain in place when it did (so public transport capacity returned to normal).

What you have stated is just wrong, and irrelevant to this discussion. As usual, you're just recycling talking points from Facebook groups and 'bloody cyclists' Twitter rants. The rhetorical framing (using the language of 'declines', when describing increases), the cherry picking of data points (ignoring a clear trend), the quotes taken out of context and misrepresented; It's boring. Instead of the 'just asking questions' nonsense and hackneyed propaganda recycled from social media, have an original thought and say what it is clearly.

Why are you quoting the LCC - are you saying that's your view?

Edited yesterday at 09:47 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

30 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I'm sorry, but the Mayor did not promise a tenfold increase as a condition to "get" a specific £800 million investment:

Did anyone actually make this claim - or are you putting words into people's mouths again?

30 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

They proposed an extension to the bike network and extended pavements, to accommodate a possible ten-fold increase in cycling and five-fold increase in walking compared to pre-COVID levels should demand return and social distancing remain in place. 

Nope. Wrong. Carefully re-read the press release. 

https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/mayors-bold-plan-will-overhaul-capitals-streets?fbclid=IwdGRjcAOleDhjbGNrA6V4H2V4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkDDM1MDY4NTUzMTcyOAABHnjF6_KNVYD87w51L1CY3cxDmYTY7vuJ-W5EkVv-Dy0q2Lv8Bb8145EFPl9O_aem_tH55yqGGzEhBy4g5u7h3Fg

 

I mean the headline tells you what they were saying: Mayor’s bold new Streetspace plan will overhaul London’s streets

and so do the bullets linked to the headline:

• Transformation of London’s roads to be fast-tracked, giving space to new cycle lanes and wider pavements to enable social distancing
• Landmark locations to benefit from temporary bike routes and more space for walking to reduce pressure on Tube and buses
• Clean, green and sustainable travel to be at the heart of London’s recovery
• Cycling could increase 10-fold and walking five-fold post-lockdown

And the first line:

The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, and TfL have today unveiled their ‘London Streetspace’ programme which will rapidly transform London’s streets to accommodate a possible ten-fold increase in cycling and five-fold increase in walking when lockdown restrictions are eased.

I mean, it's pretty clear (even to me) what they are saying.

34 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Why are you quoting the LCC - are you saying that's your view?

That's their view (interesting don't you think that they are saying they need to see more detail to determine where it is coming from). I thought it might catalyse some of you out of the attack dog zone and spur a discussion. Clearly not.

[Earl Aelfheah]

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

3 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I'm sorry, but the Mayor did not promise a tenfold increase as a condition to "get" a specific £800 million investment:

Did anyone actually make this claim - or are you putting words into people's mouths again?

You've repeatedly referenced a 'promise of a tenfold increase' that was nothing of the sort, and suggested it was linked to getting £800m of funding, which it was not. It's neither true, nor relevant to this thread:

On 09/12/2025 at 16:09, Rockets said:

Ha ha....still some way to go to get to the 10x increase promised during the lobbying for funds phase during Covid

As for this:

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

3 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

They proposed an extension to the bike network and extended pavements, to accommodate a possible ten-fold increase in cycling and five-fold increase in walking compared to pre-COVID levels should demand return and social distancing remain in place. 

Nope. Wrong. Carefully re-read the press release. 

I have. And I read it in the context of Mayors questions and discussions that took place at the time. Have you read it? You've quoted this from the press release 👇

Quote

to accommodate a possible ten-fold increase and five-fold increase in walking when lockdown restrictions are eased.

It is also says in the release: "if demand returns." (which you've omitted).

What did I say, it was to "accommodate a possible ten-fold increase in cycling and five-fold increase in walking compared to pre-COVID levels should demand return and social distancing remain in place”. Almost word for word from the press release, but even clearer if you read the broader discussions around this at the time. 

And again, relevant how? You're trying to minimise what is significant and sustained growth in cycling over many years, by misrepresenting something said in 2020. Why?

It's just nonsense tactics to deflect and obfuscate in the face of news that doesn't fit the narrative you've been pushing that bike infrastructure is ineffective.

Edited Wednesday at 22:04 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

You've repeatedly referenced a 'promise of a tenfold increase' that was nothing of the sort, and suggested it was linked to getting £800m of funding, which it was not. It's neither true, nor relevant to this thread

What is not true that I linked it to getting £800m of funding. You added the £800m, I said lobbying for funds. In 2020 they were lobbying for funds - they got £87m in the first round. You are constantly adding things people didn't say to aid your attacks. Multiple posters have had to tell you before but please stop it. You do it all the time.

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

It is also says in the release: "if demand returns." (which you've omitted).

Again. Just nonsense. I pasted the opening sentence from the press release in it's entirety. That wasn't selective editing (something i notice you did to my 2021 post you passed to try to attack me).

P.S. are you suggesting the 9.5x growth in cycling hasn't materialised because demand hasn't return? As a side note tube demand is back to between 81% and 88% of pre-covid levels.

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

And again, relevant how? You're trying to minimise what is significant and sustained growth in cycling over many years, by misrepresenting something said in 2020. Why?

Growth. Yes. Close to the ten-fold Streetspace was touted as potentially delivering? Nowhere near. The TFL modelling was clearly either massively flawed or folks were trying to drive an opportunistic narrative? No matter the circumstances a tenfold increase was clearly never going to happen under any circumstances.

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

It's just nonsense tactics to deflect and obfuscate in the face of news that doesn't fit the narrative you've been pushing that bike infrastructure is ineffective.

Again. Nonsense. This latest round of attacks were triggered because I dared asked whether anyone knew what was creating the sudden rise in cycling growth. Again, I posted the LCC comments (which you attacked me for) to try and draw out a discussion. Clearly impossible when those you are engaging with are just here for an argument. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

You’ve repeatedly talked about TfL lobbying for money on the ‘promise’ of a ten fold increase in cycling, alongside an £800m investment.

On 08/12/2025 at 16:17, Rockets said:

Do you think the growth is aligned with the spend of £800m in cycling infrastructure in London and promises of a 10x increase in cycling numbers made by those spending the money?

There was no 'promise' - that is false. As is the impression that £800m was somehow linked to such a promise.

11 hours ago, Rockets said:

This latest round of attacks were triggered because I dared asked whether anyone knew what was creating the sudden rise in cycling growth

No, the corrections and clarifications started when you questioned whether anyone had suggested cycle lanes were a waste of time / that cycling hasn't increased as a result, implying no one had - so I pointed out that you have - multiple times. You also made that false claim of a ‘promise of a ten fold increase’ in that first post, and talked about  £800m spent since 2019 - giving the impression of huge investments in cycle infrastructure, without placing it in the context of annual TfL spend of circa £11 billion.

You later started talking of ‘repeated years of growth decline’ and asked what people think is the catalyst for this - a dishonest rhetorical framing to anchor a misleading narrative of 'decline' in the premise - adding ‘I am not buying the infrastructure message’ (underlying further that it was not an honest question). 

So not 'attacks', but attempts to correct some of the inaccuracies, and highlight misleading statements.

Edited yesterday at 10:29 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

4 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

You later started talking of ‘repeated years of growth decline’ and asked what people think is the catalyst for this - a dishonest rhetorical framing to anchor a misleading narrative of 'decline' in the premise - adding ‘I am not buying the infrastructure message’ (underlying further that it was not an honest question). 

Err @Earl Aelfheah please do try to get the basis facts right at least - I asked people what the catalyst was for this year's growth after two years of growth decline/slowdown, else people may think you are engaging in dishonest rhetorical framing.....

Genuine question - do you actually read my posts before launching an attack?

Meanwhile on the buses - are we robbing Peter to pay Paul: https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/london/london-bus-speeds-worst-weve-seen-in-40-years-assembly-told/

Edited yesterday at 11:09 by Rockets

[Earl Aelfheah]

Yes, I've read your posts.

When you talk about 'years of decline in growth', that language is chosen to give a misleading impression.

You've repeatedly made a false claim about a promise of a 10 fold increase in cycling, suggested that 'promise' was used to obtain funding, and referenced £800m alongside it. That is entirely misleading and is clearly intended to minimise the success described in the BBC article, by presenting it as some sort of failure against a target that didn't exist.

To be clear, there have been significant increases in cycling numbers, a trend sustained over many years. This is the result, at least in significant part, of a relatively modest investment (somewhere around 1% of TfL's annual budget) in better cycling infrastructure.

Edited 4 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

4 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

When you talk about 'years of decline in growth', that language is chosen to give a misleading impression. It's an example of a well documented, (and dishonest) rhetorical framing device.

No it's not - it's what was actually happening based on TFL's own data - based on fact. I am sorry you don't like how I phrased it but that does not make it dishonest. It is utterly ludicrous you are attacking those elements of what I said as I was not using that in the negative at all - merely highlighting the fact that suddenly growth has increased - I presume that because you are so upset by the use of the word decline you are equally upset by the use of the word increased.

 

4 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

To be clear, there have been significant increases in cycling numbers, a trend sustained over many years. This is the result, at least in significant part, of a relatively modest investment (somewhere around 1% of TfL's annual budget) in better cycling infrastructure.

To be clear - and you have thus far managed to avoid commenting on this statement I posted earlier - the following is equally true isn't it?

But it would also be true to say (to address the pedants amongst you) that there has been growth in cycle stages but between 2022 and 2024 cycle stage growth slowed dramatically and then  between 2024 and 2025 increased massively (but no-one seems to know why). And that 43% growth in cycle stages from 2019 and 2025 is nowhere near the tenfold increase touted by the Mayor and TFL when they began their investment of around £800m in cycle infrastructure in 2021.

 

 

[malumbu]

Cycling is a great way of getting around, it is good for your physical and mental wellbeing, the environment and will be a lot cheaper than driving, often quicker.

I've posted on another thread a cycle instructor's video about sharing space with other road users and managing risk.  Cycling, in it's own right, is not a dangerous pastime/means of transport.  In the same way that walking is not dangerous.  The video shows how we can reduce the likelihood of harm to either the cyclist or others they may come across, and animals.

You can argue the fine detail until the cows come home about the trends, but it is brilliant that so many more people cycle than when I moved to London and it is now seen, certainly in the inner boroughs, as a 'normal' way of getting round rather than a few cranks and tree huggers.  

 

 

[Rockets]

@malumbu absolutely spot on and cycling growth is great but there is a growing debate about at what cost to other modes - especially to walking and buses. There are many who think the Mayor and TFL has over-indexed on cycling and neglected other forms of transport and that buses, and bus passengers, are taking the brunt of it and, looking at the data, I think that is fair criticism.

[malumbu]

No there is lots of support for buses.  I use them regularly.  We have one of the most extensive bus networks in the world and one of the most modern and cleanest.  You are just using this as a stick to beat cyclists and the mayor with. 

Edited 22 hours ago by malumbu

[Rockets]

oh @malumbu......you know two days ago there was a London Assembly Transport Committee meeting to discuss why London buses are continuing to get slower and slower and why people are abandoning buses as a result....a panel of experts joined to discuss it - including a bus company, London Travel Watch and two union reps.

Here is the link. Scroll to 1 hour 7 minutes in and have a listen for 10 minutes or so and see what the experts conclude and let me know what you think: 

 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

The congestion is multi factor. There has been a massive increase in roadworks, some reallocation of space to bicycles (still pretty minimal in the overall picture and in the context of massive growth in numbers - the actual topic of this thread btw), and a big growth in the size of the average car. That last factor has probably done a lot more to increase congestion than is discussed often.

The UK’s cars have been growing 1cm every two years for some time now, with 52% of cars sold now too large for minimum parking spaces. London's limited and historic road network was not designed for the fashion of large off-road style cars. This is seriously impacting use of valuable city space. Many roads that previously functioned as two-way streets no longer do (Crystal Palace Road being just one, obvious, local example), leading to bottlenecks and queues as vehicles wait to pass each other. That creates congestion that fans out and contributes to increased standstill traffic across the network. 

And yes, some of the road space that has been re-allocated for cycle lanes will have had an impact, although the number of segregated cycle lanes locally is almost zero. 

I whole heartedly support local bus lanes being made 24/7 (have called for it before), but I know that those who, when it's convenient for grinding their 'anti bike' axe, will show concern about bus delays, object at all other times to anything that might speed up buses to the detriment of cars.

Locally, I would make Lordship Lane a 24/7 bus lane, remove some parking in order to widen both the pavements and the carriageway slightly - making it easier for buses to pass, and reduce the number of cars manoeuvring in and out of spaces on the high street.  Similar measures elsewhere would significantly improve the experience of pedestrians and help move our buses more quickly.

And just to address your insinuation that when it comes slow bus journeys, that bikes are the problem' - The main cause of interminable congestion in London is too many, too large, private cars, making short, single occupancy journeys.

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

And just to address your insinuation that when it comes slow bus journeys, that bikes are the problem' - The main cause of interminable congestion in London is too many, too large, private cars, making short, single occupancy journeys.

Well @Earl Aelfheah I am no expert, and I am sure you're not too, but the assembled panel of experts for the London Assembly meeting to address declining bus speeds would not agree with you. They all agreed that carriageway pressure is one of the major contributing factors (along with roadworks). One specifically cited cycle lanes, LTNs, 20mph limits and public realm as key factors affecting bus speeds. Interestingly later in the discussion they talk about growing evidence that routes with interventions are some of the worst performing.

The guy from Travel Watch addresses the other vehicular traffic numbers and says that the number of other vehicles has been consistently decreasing whilst buses have been consistently getting slower.

Apparently for every 10% drop in speeds they lose 6% of passengers.

I would recommend watching from the timestamps I shared with @malumbu. Let's be clear they all acknowledge the challenge TFL has and the fact that cycle protection is important but all agree that the provision of cycle infrastrucutre it is an issue for average bus speeds (which is down to 7mph in central London apparently). I did love the question from an assembly member who said why is it an issue if when they cycle they do 15mph and buses are doing less!

[Earl Aelfheah]

I assume you'd support removing some parking on Lordship Lane and making the bus lane 24/7 to increase journey times right? Seeing as you're genuinely concerned about the issue.

[first mate]

 

Rockets said: "Well @Earl Aelfheah I am no expert, and I am sure you're not too, but the assembled panel of experts for the London Assembly meeting to address declining bus speeds would not agree with you. They all agreed that carriageway pressure is one of the major contributing factors (along with roadworks). One specifically cited cycle lanes, LTNs, 20mph limits and public realm as key factors affecting bus speeds. Interestingly later in the discussion they talk about growing evidence that routes with interventions are some of the worst performing."

 

I second this; I did not listen to the whole of the session, but from what I gathered length of cars was not mentioned at all or considered as a contributing factor in slower bus speeds.

The problem with removing parking spaces on LL is that it flies in the face of Southwark Council's carefully devised CPZ plans, where it has said it will protect local businesses who fear losing out on shoppers in cars trade by ensuring paid for parking slots on LL and adjacent residential streets. This was all rationalised as balancing the needs of shoppers in cars with those of residents requiring parking space.

When the CPZ plan first came out I immediately pointed out potential issues with buses and many of you were silent on the subject.

 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

19 minutes ago, first mate said:

They all agreed that carriageway pressure is one of the major contributing factors

What do you think is the primary cause of carriageway pressure? Do you think it's likely to be from the much smaller number of people travelling on bicycles, or the much larger number of people travelling in large private motor vehicles? 

And it's interesting how the argument against bike lanes has gone from:

1. They don't work, they're not increasing cycling numbers, to;
2. They have increased, but nowhere near as much as a target that didn't exist, to;
3. They slow buses , which I'm now concerned about (but I oppose removing parking, giving buses priority, or making bus lanes 24/7, because that might impact me and my car)

I mean it makes sense, It's not like there are any cars on the roads round here, or that they're getting bigger (turning roads that previously functioned as two-way streets, into ones where cars have to constantly stop to let each other pass) - it's just miles and miles of segregated bike lanes 🤔.

This constant pivoting about desperately looking for different ways to try and undermine a good news story is a great look. Keep going. I'm sure that if you just keep throwing 💩 some of it will stick - at least to those who want to believe it.

Edited 36 minutes ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

Have you watched the video yet @Earl Aelfheah? I take it you have not....

P.S. you know the good news cited about cycling was in the very same report the bad news about buses was in? That bad news was the catalyst for the Transport Committee meeting with bus experts to try and determine why buses are getting slower and slower....