More big increases in cycling

[Earl Aelfheah]

19 minutes ago, first mate said:

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.

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?

19 minutes ago, first mate said:

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.

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)?

Edited Tuesday at 13:13 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

I have listened to the session and already shared my views. As I said, I am most interested in local impacts. In the case of LL the CPZ plan as proposed by Southwark stated that parking on LL would not be affected or removed, this was to ensure visitors in cars had somewhere to park and businesses would be supported in terms of customers using cars/ vehicles.

I am not clear now whether you think bus speeds on LL are an issue or not? I had thought you were asking for parking on LL to be removed in order to improve bus speeds. Is that the case or not? If it is then you have to disagree with the Council CPZ plan to leave visitor parking on LL intact- it is there in black and white.

[Earl Aelfheah]

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

Edited Tuesday at 13:52 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

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?

@Earl Aelfheah you are sharing a Travel Watch report from November 2024 and linking it a meeting in December 25 the London Assembly called to discuss the continuing downward trends of bus speeds in the report you highlighted the 43% cycle sector growth in published in November 25. The way you have worded the above suggests that Travel Watch submitted that report in response to the meeting the London Assembly called recently. They did not. I am sure they stand by what they said in that report but they did not cite it in relation to the items being discussed during the recent meeting. I think you are conflating the two things and creating a misleading impression.

All I think a lot of people are calling for is a more pragmatic approach to London-wide traffic issues - that you have to be careful to balance all modes as there is no point robbing Peter to pay Paul.

14 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

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

Perfect timing. Is that the pragmatic approach?

[Earl Aelfheah]

11 minutes ago, Rockets said:

All I think a lot of people are calling for is a more pragmatic approach to London-wide traffic issues

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?

[Rockets]

What it means is that some people are calling for a more pragmatic and balanced approach to London-wide traffic matters. 

I have made my views very clear on this and, if was not clear before, my personal opinion is that TFL and the Mayor's office have over-indexed on cycling to the neglect of other transport modes in the capital. That after all the hubris to proclaim what a success their transport policies have been that actually the data is starting to show that there are problems.

In the last few weeks the London Assembly has called expert witnesses to discuss two key topics: why is TFL missing their walking targets and why are buses running slower than ever before - both concerns which were  in a report that TFL and the Mayor's office heralded the 43% increase in cycle sectors since 2019 - which was the main headline of the press releases sent to publicise it.

[first mate]

@Earl Aelfheah said to Rockets:

"So you imply (always insinuation), that cycle lanes are a major factor in congestion and in slowing buses".

But the LA session said some cycle lanes are a factor, didn't they? So you are quibbling over whether this applies to all cycle lanes? I do not believe anyone has claimed that. You are also, I think, quibbling over use of the word "major". I do not remember if the session experts claimed they were a major factor, I believe they did not qualify in that way as either major or minor, but simply mentioned this as one factor alongside other factors, which we have already itemised. I am glad you have now changed from use of "the major" to "a major".

 

 

 

 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

This thread is about an increase in cycling (that some said could never happen). 

In response we've had a lot of noise about a supposed 'target' that never existed; Complaints about the amount of money invested, with multi year figures quoted out of context; Talk of 'years of growth decline' (a really misleading framing of long term sustained increases); And now we're talking of 'concerns' over buses (from people who seem rather loud on bike lanes, but very quite on removing parking, or extending bus lane operating hours).

I knew the second that I posted the original BBC article that certain contributors would jump in to minimise it and then complain about people travelling by bicycle. It's a bizarre Pavlovian response.

The fact is that 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. We now have significant numbers of people moving around the city in a healthy, sustainable, and space efficient way. I think it's great news.

Edited 11 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

This thread is about an increase in cycling (that some said could never happen). 

Who said increases in cycling could not happen?

 

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

In response we've had a lot of noise about a supposed 'target' that never existed; Complaints about the amount of money invested, with multi year figures quoted out of context; Talk of 'years of growth decline' (a really misleading framing of long term sustained increases); And now we're talking of 'concerns' over buses (from people who seem rather loud on bike lanes, but very quite on removing parking, or extending bus lane operating hours).

The alternative narrative of course is that TFL and the Mayor are getting now were near the ten-fold increase in cycling they had modelled post-Covid and that in the report where they herald a 43% increase in cycle stages (by the way does anyone know why TFL used to measure cycle journeys but now measures cycle stages?) which is good but nowhere the ten-fold increase they mooted -it'snot even half of one-fold. In the very same report where they herald the 43% increase in cycle stages TFL also highlights a continuing slowing of bus speeds in the capital and that they are getting nowhere near the walking targets they set for themselves. 

As a result of that the London Assembly called two meetings to try to understand why buses are getting slower and why TFL are missing their walking targets and the experts in both said things that some people are ideologically opposed to and will try desperately not to agree with or acknowledge. The London Assembly have called TFL to address them in the New Year and what they say will be very interesting.

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

We now have significant numbers of people moving around the city in a healthy, sustainable, and space efficient way. I think it's great news.

And yes, I do too but it's not as good news if it has come at the expense of other, sometimes more healthy, sustainable and space efficient ways of moving people around the capital or is impacting another form of critical travel in a negative way and this is what the London Assembly will no doubt continue to explore.

Transport in London does not revolve, as some people like to suggest or think, around just cycling - the approach to transport has to be balanced and pragmatic and there are many who continue to think that the Mayor and TFL have over-indexed on cycling and that there are lot of negatives associated with the way many have adopted a "cycle-first" strategy and that the growth in cycle sectors is being propped up by e-bikes (that can be, at times, a nuisance and a danger to other road/pavement users and riders themselves) doing perfectly walkable sectors and delivery riders (that can be, at times, a nuisance and a danger to other road/pavement users and riders themselves) .

What I think is happening now is that the impact of the post-Covid transport policies is starting to be seen in the data and this will shine a light on whether those policies were balanced and pragmatic in the first place. No amount of fluffy PR heralding the often myopic "everything is awesome" narrative will hide what has actually been going on and the long-term impacts.