If you voted Labour did you expect and mandate changes in ED today?

[wulfhound]

Didn't see anything about road closures either, but did see some fairly ambitious targets for increasing cycle mode share outside of the usual core audience that I personally think they'll have a hard time achieving any other way. Although the specific road closure proposals recently seem to have come from TfL & Sustrans, not LBS.

Some people will see that as a carrot (making cycling more attractive by creating quieter, safer routes), to others it's a stick (make driving shorter trips frustrating and inconvenient & get people to switch). The truth is somewhere in between.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I have no pro lem with 20 mph and I welcome measures to make cycling safer. Two major issues though which need immediate attention, a high frequency mass transport system in the SE of the capital and secure bike parking at all tube stations (covered, staffed cycle parks or similar). The roads are making busing into town very difficult and a vague provincial train service is totally inadequate for a densley populated global city.

[James Barber]

Hi rahrahrah,

TfL has reiterated its requested that 2018 & 2019 South London suburban trains come under the cpntrol of TfL.

why 2018 & 2019 that when two train franchises come to an end.

London Overground to/from Clapham Junction changes 2018 to running every 10 minutes - not tuv train frequencies of every minute or two but still often enough to be a turn up and go service.

We also know that when TfL takes on train services they upgrade the trains, platforms and staff the stations.

WRT to 20mph Lab, Lib Dems and Green Parties all promised 20mph. But as ever the devil is in how you implement it.

[Blah Blah]

Agreed on the train thing. Mnay areas of South London are poorly served by rail infrastructure. At least we have a few stations nearby. Many areas don't. But tube infrastructure is really the issue. If we can build Crossrail, we can give South London better tube coverage - especially given how those on lower wages are being driven further out.

[Penguin68]

The thing which particularly annoys me about all this is the implicit assumption that we could all, could we be bothered, switch happily to cycle transport, and that not doing so is inherently selfish. That is to say, that Southwark is blessed with no disabled people, no elderly and infirm, no very young children, nobody who needs to transport items which are heavy and/ or awkwardly shaped for bicycle transport, nobody who, whilst able bodied themselves has to transport any of those in the categories above and so on. Or, if there are such poisonous and pointless people in Southwark, then the inadequate public transport, not (mainly ) traveling east to west, not (frequently) operational at weekends or in the late evenings and so on will be entirely adequate to meet their, frankly, irrelevant needs, until they have the decency to move or die. And until then we will endorse a council which is intent on making the travel lives of these parasites increasingly difficult, hopefully, if we can blag in CPZs expensive, and frustrating.

[ed_pete]

I don't think this all falls to the current administration. Decreasing the amount of traffic, with an aim to meet emissions targets, increase cycling and improve safety for all road users are part of the Mayors Transport Strategy (Google it). I have a mail in my inbox from TFL asking me for my views on cycle safety - that initiative has nothing to do with Southwark.

[rodneybewes]

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The thing which particularly annoys me about all

> this is the implicit assumption that we could all,

> could we be bothered, switch happily to cycle

> transport, and that not doing so is inherently

> selfish. That is to say, that Southwark is blessed

> with no disabled people, no elderly and infirm, no

> very young children, nobody who needs to transport

> items which are heavy and/ or awkwardly shaped for

> bicycle transport, nobody who, whilst able bodied

> themselves has to transport any of those in the

> categories above and so on. Or, if there are such

> poisonous and pointless people in Southwark, then

> the inadequate public transport, not (mainly )

> traveling east to west, not (frequently)

> operational at weekends or in the late evenings

> and so on will be entirely adequate to meet their,

> frankly, irrelevant needs, until they have the

> decency to move or die. And until then we will

> endorse a council which is intent on making the

> travel lives of these parasites increasingly

> difficult, hopefully, if we can blag in CPZs

> expensive, and frustrating.

Despite the histrionics I agree that the focus should be more balanced on a range of different solutions to getting around London. I think cycling is the least expensive and ticks most of the boxes which is why it's up there - tubes in SE London would be lovely but let's face it, it's not going to happen any time soon.

I also agree that cycling isn't for all. However there are plenty of people who would take it up if it were safer - me for a start. The more people like me on cycle paths into town the more room for those who aren't able to cycle.

[wulfhound]

@Penguin68 TfL's travel surveys have always been very conservative on all those points. And while there are brilliant solutions allowing young children & people with certain disabilities to use bikes for some of their transport, TfL aren't particularly pushing any of it (no facilities at all for passenger seats on boris bikes, for example; no parcel shelf / rear rack = even singles can't use one for the weekly shop). They seem more preoccupied with commuters.

And while I'm sure your accusation rings true with a lot of people, I've not seen any indication that Southwark are planning to rellocate more than a few % of the borough's total road capacity to bikes. Why is it that closing a few fairly minor roads, which carry a small percent of total traffic (Loughborough Junction scheme aside), perceived as tantamount to banning cars and persecuting their owners?

  Quote

London Overground to/from Clapham Junction changes 2018 to running every 10 minutes - not tuv train frequencies of every minute or two but still often enough to be a turn up and go service.

Suburban Tube isn't all it's cracked up to be - the lines branch out, some skip stations etc., by the time you get out as far as the North Circular, a lot of the surface Tube stations only get a train every 10 minutes outside rush hour.

[Blah Blah]

Also I don't think anyone has ever said that everyone should cycle to be fair. The push has always been to get MORE people cycling, because that's seen as a good move away from congestion. And it makes sense as many cars/vehicles have just one person in them. Smart cars were part of the effort to address that too. But the reality is that a car is the size it is because of all the other occasions, where items and friends/ family have to be transported. It's an all round vehicle, and the expense of such things (esp insurance) don't make having a selection of transport options available, cost effective to most people. Occasional users of vehicles do use schemes like Zip car, because that's cheaper than keeping a vehicle all year round, but it's no good for someone needing a vehicle 2-3 times a week or more.

My frustration with public transport in London it the time it takes to get anywhere. I cycle on journeys that I can (and I don't work far away so that includes going to work).

[Penguin68]

Why is it that closing a few fairly minor roads, which carry a small percent of total traffic

Were we able to be sure that there was any stopping point to this, I would tend to agree, but in practice we see a juggernaut rolling forward with no clear end in sight. Each 'attack' on what I might call traditional road usage seems but a stage before the next initiative is announced. And the council is clear in its aim, not (just) to encourage cycling, nor (just) to make it safer, but to drive cars and car usage out of the borough. 'More' cycling seems determined on 'less' cars - and on making driving more intolerable. For the number of cars on the road to decrease because more are choosing to cycle is fine (i.e. a voluntary and consequential move), but to plan to 'stop' cars being owned or driven in Southwark, with cycling being the offered alternative (whether appropriate or not) seems to be the route being taken by the council, on the back of their manifesto. We all know a reasonable policy when we see one - but I am not seeing one here, if only because there is no apparent limit to it.

[bobbsy]

This will be a rambly post, so bear with me...

I don't like the subterfuge around getting cars out of central London. If that is really the motive, just be upfront about it and either increase vehicle tax for cars registered within central London, or increase the congestion charge zone to perhaps the North and South Circulars, or indeed the M25, or enact another economic penalty, rather than pfaff around with ridiculous road infrastructure works. Then residents and users can make an informed decision about the value of owning/using a car in these areas.

For me, there are certain times I want to drive a car, no matter how long or annoying the journey is - rain/cold/transporting a lot of stuff/late night journeys etc. Cars are generally very comfortable, have great stereo systems, and are not exactly expensive to run when compared to public transport. They give you the freedom to travel as and when you want and not be subjected to fickle public transport. I commute by bicycle 5 days a week, and would never consider driving into central London during mon-fri peak hour traffic, but outside these times I enjoy using the car compared to the alternatives currently available.

I was aware Labour had 20mph zones as a priority, but I did not support them. Unfortunately election trends show that generally inner city areas support Labour.

[uncleglen]

first mate's post about the Labour politician getting on here just to criticise James Barber etc reminded me of the incident in the council chamber. And yes I loathe voting for any of them because anyone who actually seeks political power can't be trusted on anything.

[Blah Blah]

Good post bobbsy. There is too much emphasis on demonising modes of transport without really considering why people need or choose those forms of transport. I too hate subterfuge and just wish we stopped knee jerk single issue policies and looked instead at overall strategies. Traffic flow is as important a part of any strategy as safety is.

[Bobby P]

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The thing which particularly annoys me about all

> this is the implicit assumption that we could all,

> could we be bothered, switch happily to cycle

> transport, and that not doing so is inherently

> selfish. That is to say, that Southwark is blessed

> with no disabled people, no elderly and infirm, no

> very young children, nobody who needs to transport

> items which are heavy and/ or awkwardly shaped for

> bicycle transport, nobody who, whilst able bodied

> themselves has to transport any of those in the

> categories above and so on. Or, if there are such

> poisonous and pointless people in Southwark, then

> the inadequate public transport, not (mainly )

> traveling east to west, not (frequently)

> operational at weekends or in the late evenings

> and so on will be entirely adequate to meet their,

> frankly, irrelevant needs, until they have the

> decency to move or die. And until then we will

> endorse a council which is intent on making the

> travel lives of these parasites increasingly

> difficult, hopefully, if we can blag in CPZs

> expensive, and frustrating.

Great post. You nailed the moralising perfectly.

(Posted by a cyclist on approximately 70% of journeys, commuter or evil car driver on the rest).

[James Barber]

I'm obviously not a Labour fan generally but I really don't think they have a hidden agenda against car use.

The population of London is rapidly expanding. The number of roads isn't. We have to cram more people onto the same amount of road space to make journeys. If you drive around London expect even more competition for that limited road space. So either we have to collectively become much more efficient at how we use road space OR build many many more roads. The latter would require demolition of large numbers of peoples homes - they started this in the 60's - hence the Bricklayers Arms disaster. A bigger problem than crowded roads is lack of reasonably priced housing. So clearly demolishing lots of housing to try and solve a problem of crowded roads that isn't as acute a problem as housing wouldn't make sense.

The drive for cycling is because new tube lines and the like take decades to make happen and cost many billions in the UK. Segregated bike lanes cost millions and be done in a year or two. IF we reach levels of cycling such as Copenhagen and Amsterdam we will have avoided tens of billions in new tubes lines, improved average fitness, and relieved the pressure that would have been on road space for extra buses and motor vehicles.

But change isn't comfortable and isn't an exact science. Some changes will and wont work. The important thing is trying to solve the problems.

[Earl Aelfheah]

If there was secure bike parking at Brixton, Oval and Elephant I think you would see a significant increase in bike usage - for much less cost and in a much quicker timescale.