More big increases in cycling

[Rockets]

3 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

True, walking is an efficient use of space - That's one reason why I've supported reallocating space to pedestrians (you've objected to it). It is however, good for carrying people short distances. As a form of private transport that is capable of moving people across the capital quickly using relatively little space, cycling is pretty unbeatable. It is much more space efficient than single occupancy motor vehicles.

I presume you are basing my objection on the basis of my objection to the Dulwich Square debacle? If you are you may want to look back and you will find examples of me championing more space for pedestrians...but you know what they say about the truth and a good story....

Anyway.....enough of me responding to one of your usual attacks....I would challenge you on whether cycling is pretty unbeatable for moving people across the capital on the basis that, in my mind, the large majority of the growth in cycling is not coming from moving people across the capital but a growing number of people doing perfectly walkable journeys on Lime bikes and the likein the centre of London. As a teenager on my first exploratory journeys into London (apologies to my my and dad as they didn't know I was going into town - or the football for that matter!) I would arrive at Charing Cross and jump on the Northern Line to Leicester Square for a night out at what I think was called Buzz Bar (awful bar but great for under-age drinkers!) - until I realised it was quicker to walk that journey. 

I honestly think a lot of the growth in cycle stages is because people are jumping on Lime bikes to do very short journeys - it's one of the things the Dutch government is concerned about that the proliferation of e-bikes is creating a generation who won't walk or cycle (conventional bicycles) anymore and so are less fit.

3 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I assume you also defer to the experts when it comes to their recommendations?

By the same measure you then agree with the conclusions of the panel that one of the causes of bus delays are the provision of cycle infrastructure? Of course Travel Watch has their recommendations but very interesting that during the expert panel (I believe) it was the man from Travel Watch who said there was increasing thoughts that those bus lanes with the most interventions were some of the worst performing.

[DulvilleRes]

44 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Anyway.....enough of me responding to one of your usual attacks....

An interesting way to characterize you simply being fact-checked. As is continually necessary. 

[Rockets]

4 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

That's one reason why I've supported reallocating space to pedestrians (you've objected to it).

 

4 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Increasing the operating hours of existing bus lanes and enforcing them (don't mention the enforcement to Rocks). 

Hmmm @DulvilleRes - the evidence would suggest otherwise.

[6musicdad]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

I presume you are basing my objection on the basis of my objection to the Dulwich Square debacle? If you are you may want to look back and you will find examples of me championing more space for pedestrians...but you know what they say about the truth and a good story....

Anyway.....enough of me responding to one of your usual attacks....I would challenge you on whether cycling is pretty unbeatable for moving people across the capital on the basis that, in my mind, the large majority of the growth in cycling is not coming from moving people across the capital but a growing number of people doing perfectly walkable journeys on Lime bikes and the likein the centre of London. As a teenager on my first exploratory journeys into London (apologies to my my and dad as they didn't know I was going into town - or the football for that matter!) I would arrive at Charing Cross and jump on the Northern Line to Leicester Square for a night out at what I think was called Buzz Bar (awful bar but great for under-age drinkers!) - until I realised it was quicker to walk that journey. 

I honestly think a lot of the growth in cycle stages is because people are jumping on Lime bikes to do very short journeys - it's one of the things the Dutch government is concerned about that the proliferation of e-bikes is creating a generation who won't walk or cycle (conventional bicycles) anymore and so are less fit.

By the same measure you then agree with the conclusions of the panel that one of the causes of bus delays are the provision of cycle infrastructure? Of course Travel Watch has their recommendations but very interesting that during the expert panel (I believe) it was the man from Travel Watch who said there was increasing thoughts that those bus lanes with the most interventions were some of the worst performing.

Do you have any evidence that 1) people are using Lime bikes as opposed to walking to get from point to point and 2) the concern of the Dutch government you point out? Or are these your ‘observations ’.

Either way, you bizarrely seem to raise point 1 in a number of posts. Even if Lime bikes replaced existing walking journeys how is this a bad thing? People can get to places quicker, it’s still active, generates economic growth, people may feel safer at night on one vs walking.

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

you will find examples of me championing more space for pedestrians.

Can you name one?

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

Increasing the operating hours of existing bus lanes and enforcing them (don't mention the enforcement to Rocks). 

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

Edited 17 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

5 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I asked whether you think the primary cause of carriageway pressure in London is bicycles, and you said you'll go with the view of the panel. That doesn't feel like it's really your own view. Regardless, it is clearly one that is wrong (and not actually what that panel have said). 

What are you actually saying here Earl?You seem to be trying to find a way to put words into my mouth. 

Given your newly found expertise on what the panel said, do you agree with them that cycle lanes are a factor in slower buses?

 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

Look at the top of the previous page 🙄

[first mate]

On 13/12/2025 at 07:01, Earl Aelfheah said:

firstmate If (as it appears) you’re suggesting the primary cause of congestion in London is bicycles, you are just wrong.

Looking back I found you had said this. And you claim to want good faith debate? Tut, tut. 

In fact, I see you are up to your usual slice and dice tricks and lifted a comment you allege was made by me that was actually part of an earlier paragraph I had quoted by Rockets. So you keep stating I have said something I haven't. 

 

24 minutes ago, first mate said:

Given your newly found expertise on what the panel said, do you agree with them that cycle lanes are a factor in slower buses?

Sorry, I must have missed your answer.

Edited 17 hours ago by first mate

[Earl Aelfheah]

So the argument against bike lanes has gone from:

1. They don't work, they're not increasing cycling numbers, to;
2. cycling numbers have increased, but nowhere near as much as a target that never existed said it would, to;
3. 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?

1 hour ago, first mate said:

Sorry, I must have missed your answer.

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). 

Edited 16 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

On 12/12/2025 at 14:25, Rockets said:

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.

Just for complete accuracy, here is the quote by Rockets. I also see that Earl rather dishonestly changed the words, removing "one of the" to a stronger "the" which rather changes emphasis and therefore meaning.

So Earl has a number of times not only stated I have said something I have not but meddled with the quote to better serve his purpose.

26 minutes ago, first mate said:

Given your newly found expertise on what the panel said, do you agree with them that cycle lanes are a factor in slower buses?

@Earl AelfheahDid you respond?

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, first mate said:

Just for complete accuracy, here is the quote by Rockets. I also see that Earl rather dishonestly changed the words, removing "one of the" to a stronger "the" which rather changes emphasis and therefore meaning.

So Earl has a number of times not only stated I have said something I have not but meddled with the quote to better serve his purpose.

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. 

1 hour ago, first mate said:

Did you respond?

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

Edited 16 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

On 12/12/2025 at 17:59, first mate said:

On 12/12/2025 at 15:30, Earl Aelfheah said:

What do you think is the primary cause of carriageway pressure?

I'd go with the expert opinion at the LA panel which seemed balanced and reasonable. In the part I listened to, traffic and parking was mentioned (especially couriers) but no more emphasised than cycle lanes, public utilities- 'emergency' works (especially Thames Water), road design interventions like box junctions (viewed by the bus driver rep as primarily about money-making). 

Strangely, no mention of car length or size.

This is where Earl started to try to get the kind if answer he wanted. When that failed, he changed Rocket's wording, misattributed it to me and then told me I was wrong to say that!

Wow!

8 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

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 okay? Go back and read.

10 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

The primary cause of carriageway pressure is motor vehicles. That makes it sound like they're saying it's bicycles.

That's certainly not how I read it.

[Earl Aelfheah]

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?

[first mate]

31 minutes ago, first mate said:

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.

This is what the panel of experts in the part of the session I was able to listen to said. As I said before, they did not seem to emphasise one factor over the other, so the significance of each factor was not addressed. Cars and especially parking were also mentioned but not emphasised as being the most important. Perhaps they were later in the session, but not in the section I heard.

[Earl Aelfheah]

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:

1. bike lanes don't work, they're not increasing cycling numbers, to;
2. cycling numbers have increased, but nowhere near as much as a target that never existed said it would, to;
3. 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? 

Edited 15 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

Bringing this all down to local level, what are your thoughts on the Council's desire to introduce CPZ but also to 'balance' the parking needs of shoppers in cars with those of local residents? They have proposed preserving and possibly increasing visitor parking on Lordship Lane in order to support shoppers in cars and also local businesses.

Given the clamour now that it is necessary to remove parking on LL to speed up buses, do you think the Council's CPZ proposition was a cynical and dishonest manoeuvre?

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

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?

Edited 4 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

13 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

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.

This is why TFL were not invited to give evidence - they are being invited in January - this was the London Assembly taking expert evidence from non-TFL people to determine what their thoughts are. And, as we have set from the outset, issues caused by cycle infrastructure were flagged as one of a number of challenges slowing buses by those experts - no-one said it was the only one.

It will be very interesting to see if TFL agree with them.

 

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

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. 

Yes we know you would but I think the key take-away from me from the London Assembly meeting was that there needs to be a level of pragmatism and analysis of the likely impact of doing that - you can't just rob Peter to pay Paul because paying Paul sits better with your ideology (and I actually think this is what is happening at the London-wide level - that TFL has over-indexed on cycling to the cost of other means of transport and it is all now coming to light because data and trends are emerging that need more analysis that cannot be hidden).

Now you flag a key issue - there are clearly loading bays there for a reason - what happens if you remove them - what is the council's rationale for having them there? Anyway, based on the bus time analysis put out by the council around the LTNs weren't you (or some of your cohort) arguing that bus times along Lordship Lane had not been impacted?  If you remove parking what impact does that have on the traders on Lordship Lane and by making a stretch of road a few hundred metres 24/7 bus lane does that actually make a difference?

A lot of people will always jump to the "remove space for cars" as the only solution and it was also very interesting that the chap from Travel Watch suggested there was growing evidence that those bus lanes with the most interventions are some of the worst performing.

[first mate]

I want to remind everyone what the Council said around the time of the most recent CPZ consultation- this was kindly posted by March

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

this was the London Assembly taking expert evidence from non-TFL people to determine what their thoughts are.

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.

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

Yes we know you would but I think the key take-away from me from the London Assembly meeting was that there needs to be a level of pragmatism and analysis of the likely impact of doing that

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?

[first mate]

@Earl Aelfheah, how do you square the Council's stated CPZ agenda and plans (preserving parking on LL) with slower bus speeds? Are you suggesting that buses were not impacted by this earlier in the summer, when consultation was underway?

When I raised the issue of bus speeds you were all silent on the subject. Why?

I note you prefer to focus on the London-wide area rather than local.

Edited 54 minutes ago by first mate

[Earl Aelfheah]

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.

[first mate]

That's a bit  of a swerve there Earl. I guess that since CPZ plans may inhibit ways to mitigate LL bus speeds you may have to become interested?

Edited 49 minutes ago by first mate

[Earl Aelfheah]

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?

Edited 39 minutes ago by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

I have been asking questions abut this local conundrum of LL lane, CPZ and bus speeds for a long time and raised it earlier in this thread.

To simply to say I am not interested is a swerve because you have also said you ideally want parking removed from bus lanes. If you want this to happen locally you would probably have to oppose local CPZ plans- as those state parking will not be removed.

On other matters I have responded to some of your questions; I suspect you did not get the answers you wanted. TBH, I am more interested in road design and traffic interventions at local level. The broader discussion on London-wide measures is of interest but not to the same degree as the former.

 

Edited 23 minutes ago by first mate