Rockets

What question are you actually trying to get an answer to?

In the context of how you used it, it was clearly meant to be derogatory. You were questioning their mental state were you not? @Administrator has been very clear in the past that such posts are not permitted as a few have ventured down this distateful path before. It would probably be wise to remove it.

I thought this type of language wasn't allowed anymore?

Ha ha - @Earl Aelfheah let me answer the straight question I posed to you: yes, that UoW report did conclude that lower car-use within LTNs that they surveyed was not down to the LTNs! Maybe I am not the one being slippery here! 😉

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.

Do you agree that the last version of the study did conclude that: If you're having trouble finding it you will find it under Summary Discussion within the report. This is the problem when organisations like TFL fund these types of reports - sometimes the research will throw up results you aren't interested in because it doesn't suit the narrative you are trying to land by funding the research in the first place.

@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. Perfect timing. Is that the pragmatic approach?

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. 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.

It seems Lime and Forest are drinking in the last-chance saloon in Islington.... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yj6xy7n68o Council puts hire bike operators on 'last warning' Islington Council has said e-bike hire companies Lime and Forest are on their "last warning" to tackle dangerous parking and poor rider behaviour - or face losing permission to operate in the borough.

In your mind maybe, but the conclusion of the report has not has it? It clearly concluded that LTNs were not the drivers of lower car use didn't it? So, you can look at that report and argue until the cows come home about whether it was incomplete, buried, too technical for the general public, no longer funded...blah, blah, blah. It doesn't matter - the point is that the report did not support a narrative TFL would be happy to see made public (TFL basically admits as much in the FoI exchanges) - do you agree with that? I can guarantee you that if the report did say that LTNs do reduce car use TFL would have encouraged UoW to publish it and you would have read all about it in a Peter Walker "exclusive";-). This is the problem with activist research - if the paymaster doesn't like the narrative then they won't put it out and it happens in every industry. The other side of the argument of course is they are using tools available to them to flag the reality of how some organisations and public bodies are hiding things from the public as it doesn't suit their narrative. I think it's known as holding them to account. It's why we have FoI's because so much has been hidden/buried in the past across a wide range of subjects.

Might that also be because the report didn't come to the conclusions UoW and TFL needed it to - the report concluded that LTN's did not actually reduce car use? Like here in an excerpt from the report and the reminder from TFL about everything being FOI'able but that no-one outside of TFL knew about the study (that stuff is smoking gun gold is it not - I mean what else could they possibly mean?): While there is evidence that respondents living in areas with more LTN roads do use a car less frequently, there is only weak evidence that this could be driven by the LTN itself. Once other area- level and infrastructural characteristics are accounted for, there is not a significant effect associated with car use. This suggests that the lower car use in areas with more LTN roads is the result of the other area-level and infrastructural characteristics rather than the LTN.

Hmmm @DulvilleRes - the evidence would suggest otherwise.

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.

To be fair @Earl Aelfheah according to the bus driver union representative on the London Assembly meeting buses are also being delayed/slowed by cyclists in bus lanes too. Now, as I said before, all the the experts agreed that cyclists in bus lanes was needed for cyclist safety but also agreed it was having an impact as a bus can only travel as fast as the slowest cyclist as they cannot safely pass them due to the width of buses. To also be fair I believe, if I remember correctly, that it was also the Travel Watch person who suggested that many think that those routes with the most interventions (he cited bus gates as an example) are some of the worst performing.

@malumbu you need to stop knee-jerking, no-one said "it's all the cyclists fault". The subject matter experts invited to the London Assembly Transport Committee discussing why bus speeds have declined so much said that it was one of the contributing factors, certainly not the only factor and no-one on here has made that claim. But clearly lots of bus journeys are being impacted else the experts would not have claimed that cycle infrastrucutre is one of the contributing factors. Did you watch the YouTube video of the Committee meeting? What are your thoughts on what the assembled experts say in relation to that?

Hmmm, you may have overlooked walking as that performs the best in regard to your metrics.

One of the challenges discussed is the reallocation of spaces dedicated to speed up buses to cycles and this has been identified as one of the causes of slowing of the buses. Congestion is also being caused by the removal of space allocated to all road vehicles. This is why the guy from Travel Watch said vehicular traffic has been consistently dropping during the same period as the slowing of buses has been getting consistently worse. Clearly roadworks are a big issue and the guy from the bus company said this was being temporarily exacerbated by the removal of alternative routes around roadworks.

I know it has always been bad around there during school drop-off and pick-up but has it got worse since the redesign of Hunts Slip?

And they were concluding that some of the interventions were squeezing traffic making less and less available roadspace even though there was less vehicular traffic on the roads. The Travel Watch person said that he could not find stats on how much of the road space had been dedicated to cycle lanes or shared usage but he did cite the example of Chiswich High Road where the bus lanes had been removed to facilitate dedicated cycle lanes (I am not sure you would consider that Central). I thought the debate was very balanced; that they acknowledged the problems caused by slowing buses, discussed all of the factors contributing to it yet acknowledged the challenges of balancing priorities but it was very clear that one of the contributing factors is the provision of cycle infrastrucutre (that they all acknowledged was needed to keep cyclists safe). Well intended changes can often have negative consequences. @Penguin68 I am going to watch the video again where they mention growing evidence that some of the roads with most interventions to aid bus flow are some of the worst performing. It seemed to be something there was consensus that needed more analysis but it wasn't clear what they meant by interventions as they mentioned bus gates which are more of an LTN thing.

Unfortunately some people don't want balance and reasonableness as it doesnt suit their personal agenda. It's clear there are problems because the approach to active travel has been anything but balanced.

"Choice of materials"....hmmm what might that be in relation too...please see other thread about people crashing their bikes in Dulwich Square? In comedy, timing is everything. It was but @malumbu clearly thinks adults and children crashing their bikes on slippery materials in Dulwich Square is fair game and perfectly reasonable "facetious" material.

That was the point of the London Assembly Transport Committee meeting, to get expert opinion on what is causing the delays to buses. TFL is being called in January to present their thoughts.

@malumbu I would not joke about the slippery Dulwich Square as it sounds like a lot of people (and children) had accidents as a result so it is no laughing matter.

Have you watched the video @malumbu? Ouch! 😉

Three of the four experts reference it and they talk about it for some time as one of the key factors in bus delays. But they are talking about bus lanes - did you hear the union member saying that sharing bus lanes with bikes is great and needed for cycle safety but buses are being delayed by bikes as they cannot overtake them? I suggest no-one listen to @Earl Aelfheah and watches ten minutes of the video from the point at about 1 hour 7 minutes. It's very, very clear what they are discussing and the expert opinion they share.