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.

@Rockets - yes, I don't think we're disagreeing on what was said. But the conversation starts with the chair laying out what TfL have put forward as the cause of slow bus speeds, and asking the panellists if they agreed (Which they did) and whether there were any additional factors that TfL did not identify. So to highlight the 'additional factors' without mentioning the premise of the question, gives a slightly misleading impression. That's not to say that they don't identify the reallocation of road space as a factor, it obviously is. But it is one additional factor alongside congestion, emergency incidents, demonstrations, and the mechanical performance of the bus fleet (as are road works). Of course unlike those other factors (the primary factors identified by TfL and addressed in the Travel Watch report), which do nothing to move people more quickly, safely or efficiently - expanded pedestrian areas and protected cycle lanes do.

OK, so you defer to the experts. Fair enough. Those experts have recommended: Increasing the operating hours of existing bus lanes and enforcing them, and Continuing to develop other elements of bus priority, such as bus gates and removal of parking spaces in appropriate locations I strongly agree with this and would like both applied to Lordship Lane and other major routes. I'm glad that you're not advocating for the removal of cycle lanes. It is very clear that they have been successful in contributing to the sustained, long term trend of increasing numbers of people travelling by bicycle. Yes, the bus driver said these were the two big additional factors in slowing buses. Yes, there has been reallocation of some road space, which of course reduces capacity. That is one of the additional factors (on top of congestion, emergency incidents, demonstrations and the mechanical performance of the bus fleet) that will contribute to slower buses. Of course unlike those other factors, which do nothing to move people more quickly, safely or efficiently - protected pedestrian and cycle areas do.

I am not questioning it, just establishing the fact that you have recognised them as experts and suggested that their views should be taken seriously. Great, so do you agree with: Increasing the operating hours of existing bus lanes and enforcing them, and Continuing to develop other elements of bus priority, such as bus gates and removal of parking spaces in appropriate locations? They were taken as read actually - agreeing with TfL analysis that the primary causes where linked to congestion, emergency incidents, demonstrations and the mechanical performance of the bus fleet. They were asked about any additional factors - and pointed out increases in roadworks and reallocation of road space. You have made several different arguments against bike lanes, first bike lanes don't work, they're not increasing cycling numbers, to; cycling numbers have increased, but nowhere near as much as a target that never existed said it would, to; Representative from Travel Watch say reallocation of space (including to pedestrians) is one factor in slowing some buses. May we just establish what you're asking to be done about what you appear to consider the 'problem' of bike lanes? Are you calling for cycle lanes to be removed?

The CPZ is completely unrelated to the number of parking spaces, or the pavement width on Lordship Lane. I guess not.

A Honda Jazz is 1694 mm. It's narrower than a Ford Fiesta. A Citroen C1 is around 1620 mm. A Range Rover by comparison is well over 2 metres wide (as are several other car models). You are correct however that cars are getting wider (about 1 cm very two years on average), that's the point; There is no 'safety' reason that they should growing, and when you have cars that are exceeding typical UK parking bay widths and making them challenging for narrow roads, that's a problem

@first mate I genuinely don't understand your point here. Whilst I'm sure what you say is true, the fact is that the CPZ has no impact on parking on Lordship Lane. The fact that I would support widening the pavement and removing some parking, seems completely disconnected with the CPZ proposals. There are lot's of schemes that make no changes to parking on Lordship Lane - must I object to them on the grounds that they're irrelevant? You keep asking me the same questions on this across several threads (which I keep answering). It's confusing and a bit strange. May I ask that you return the same courtesy and clarify your views on Lordship Lane parking, pavement widening and bike lanes? No one has called for cars to be banned.

That's right, weren't you banned for a while?

The experts (your words) from Travel Watch, who appear in the video you've shared, have compiled a report making a list of recommendations. Do you agree with those recommendations (any or all of them)? Do you think cycle lanes should be removed?

Honda Jazz, Citroen C1 etc... there are lot's of small cars in production. It is clearly not true to say that cars have to be big for 'safety reasons'. Higher bonnets are generally more dangerous for pedestrians, especially children, because they hit adults above the centre of gravity (vital organs) and children's heads, increasing the risk of serious injury or death and making them more likely to be pushed under the car rather than over it. Research indicates a 10cm increase in bonnet height significantly raises fatality risk

This is not true. There are still small cars in production and oversized cars are certainly not designed that way to protect pedestrians or cyclists. I have said repeatedly that it is true. I don't understand why you ask me the same questions over and over without apparently listening to the answers. Meanwhile you continue swerving questions that have been posed to you. For example: Do you accept the recommendations of the Travel watch report? Do you think that cycle lanes should be removed? It would be good if you both you and Rockets actually clarified what your view is on these things, instead of just kicking up dust and relying on innuendo.

You're repeating yourself. I've stated numerous times that I support the removal of parking on Lordship Lane. Do you? The CPZ plans (which I have no view on) don't effect parking on lordship lane in any way - which is true of 101 other schemes. You seem to think this is a reason to object to them - that doesn't' make sense.

Really interesting debate - thanks for posting.

That isn't answering my question is it? It's answering a question no one asked you. And yes, you are being slippery.

It's not OK to enquire if someone is OK? I have clearly stated more than once that I support the removal of some parking on Lordship Lane, both to increase the space for pedestrians and also to improve bus passage along the road - so it seems odd that he keeps asking me the same question. Again, are you not reading my posts before asking me questions? Also, is there any chance of either you or Rocks ever answering a question, without posing a different question?

Do you ever answer a straight question, rather than asking another one? The slipperiness is exhausting.

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?

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

Are you OK? I've said that, yes I would like to see less space allocated to parked cars on Lordship Lane, multiple times. Do you ever answer a question, without a question? What is your view on this?

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? 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)?

Why do you think this will have an impact on Lordship Lane buses? There is no additional parking being proposed, or have I missed something? Are you supporting the removal of parking on Lordship Lane, as you're obviously concerned about the impact it has on buses?

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?

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.

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. 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?

Nope. I uploaded the email exchanges to chatGPT and asked for it to provide an objective summary. There is no conspiracy. I'm not arguing anything. I'm telling you what the full email exchanges say - not cherry picking bits and taking them out of context to try and prop up something I want to believe. As for the study, it was curtailed because there were too few new LTNs and the sample size was too small to carry out the planned analysis of their impact on travel behaviour. Two follow-up waves also failed to provide enough data. Publishing the reports was deemed unnecessary because they were highly technical and would require significant effort to make accessible for the public and the findings offered little new insight, were largely inconclusive, and could even cause confusion. Yet you continue to discount a huge body of high quality research, giving greater weight to a single, incomplete study, that hasn't been formally published or peer reviewed. Sorry? Is it 'activist research', or important research you're putting a lot of weight on? And btw (as there has been some successful deflection of the point), the cheese shop's closure had nothing to do with changes to the road layout in Dulwich Village 🤣