Earl Aelfheah

Yes. buses regularly get held up behind traffic, outside of peak hours, when an operational bus lane would allow them to pass. And the problem of ever wider vehicles means roads that previously functioned as two-way streets no longer do - with vehicles having to wait to let each other pass, slowing everything down.

Travel Watch (who appear in that clip on the other thread) recommend: Increasing the operating hours of existing bus lanes and enforcing them Maintaining and not removing existing bus lanes when implementing new road schemes. Undertaking a comprehensive signal timing review to prioritise buses. Continuing to develop other elements of bus priority, such as bus gates and removal of parking spaces in appropriate locations. Implementing the second phase of the Superloop network and continuing to expand it whenever possible so that more current and potential passengers can benefit from its transformational approach to travelling by bus in London. Better co-ordination of roadworks, for example, through the expansion of the Bus Sense scheme to all London boroughs and continued use of the ICS. I would also suggest action to discourage ‘car spreading / bloat’

I had a read through some of those emails in context, and you're not fairly portraying the thread imo. There is no evidence of any sort of cover up. Their main concern seems to be that it's a bit technical and they don't have time to do the work to make it accessible / ready for publication before the busy pre-election period. There is also the question of whether they'll continue with the research and so whether it's worth publishing at all. Ironically that reference to FOI expresses the pressure they feel to publish quickly even though it's a very dense / technical report and they need to do some comms work, because otherwise 'the usual suspects' will FOI it (and no doubt make mischief / misrepresent it - my interpretation not their words). For those (nearly everyone) who isn't going to bother scanning through the very long email chain, here is an objective ChatGPT produced summary of what's in it: Report Draft and Feedback: University of Westminster (UoW) delivered a draft of the Wave 2 Travel & Places report in March 2024 (101 pages, mostly appendices). TfL team planned internal review and feedback before Easter, with a core team discussion scheduled. Key Findings and Comments: Positive result: proximity to Cycleways correlates with increased cycling. Some technical language flagged for simplification; minor edits suggested (terminology, clarity on methodology). Questions raised about the 10-minute buffer used for analysis versus usual 400m metric. Future Surveys: Debate on whether to conduct a third wave in 2024; consensus leaning toward stopping further surveys due to limited expected new infrastructure and diminishing returns. Concerns about methodology impact if a “gap year” occurs. Publication Strategy: Original reports considered too technical for public release. Proposal to publish a TiL-style summary report plus data tables in Excel. Discussion on whether to include methodologies in appendices or publish original reports for transparency. FOI risk noted—may need to publish all findings eventually. Resource and Funding Issues: Collating 300–400 tables from three reports flagged as significant work; may require extra funding and time. Options: use spare budget from active travel monitoring or request IDP to cover costs. Next Steps: Internal planning session suggested to clarify approach before committing to UoW for extra work. Communications and timing difficult due to pre-election period; aim for summer publication if proceeding.

.

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 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). Interestingly, if you read Travel Watch's detailed report (mostly those people in the video are there from Travel Watch off the back of that review, plus a few bus drivers), their recommendations are: Increasing the operating hours of existing bus lanes and enforcing them (don't mention the enforcement to Rocks). Maintaining and not removing existing bus lanes when implementing new road schemes. Undertaking a comprehensive signal timing review to prioritise buses. Continuing to develop other elements of bus priority, such as bus gates and removal of parking spaces in appropriate locations. Implementing the second phase of the Superloop network and continuing to expand it whenever possible so that more current and potential passengers can benefit from its transformational approach to travelling by bus in London. Better co-ordination of roadworks, for example, through the expansion of the Bus Sense scheme to all London boroughs and continued use of the ICS. I assume you also defer to the experts when it comes to their recommendations? Plenary motion 9. It was passed on June 5 2025. The debate is fairly boring (and split along political lines), but you can find it on YouTube if you're interested. This the wording of the motion, which was passed with 14 votes to 8 https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/london-assembly-press-releases/mayoral-support-needed-help-tackle-carspreading

It was suggested that bicycles were the primary cause of carriageway pressure. They are not. ...don't mention Brexit They've been in power just over a year - following 14 years of Tory mismanagement and chaos.

You don’t have to outsource your thinking to someone else. You seem to be disagreeing that, fundamentally congestion is the result of there being more vehicles (cars, vans, deliveries) than roads can handle; This is the very definition of congestion. If you want to reallocate space to speed up buses, you don’t go after a really small part of the overall allocation, dedicated to the form of private transport that is the least polluting, moves the highest number of people for the least amount of road space, and has significant public health / ROI benefits.

We agree on that. Fundamentally there are more vehicles (cars, vans, deliveries) than roads can handle, creating bottlenecks. Yes, some road space has been reallocated, but there are very few segregated bike lanes outside of Central, and it is very clear that bicycles are not the primary cause of congestion. If you are concerned to see improvements in bus services, would you support bus priority measures and 24/7 bus lanes (for example the one on Lordship Lane), or the removal of car parking on main roads?

Not in that one clip Rockets has picked. But the London Assembly has debated the issue and signed a motion, calling on Sadiq Khan to address it, as cars are ‘getting bigger with every passing year, creating congestion, taking up limited space on our streets and adding danger’. Rockets hasn’t linked to that particular discussion. This is the thing. There is no ‘balance’ when you start from a position where you are determined to prove a position you’ve already taken, and seek out ‘evidence’ according - in this case looking to undermine a growth in cycling you’ve repeatedly said couldn’t happen, but has. The fact that that this is now Rockets third attempt to find an angle, really is revealing. @firstmate If (as it appears) you’re suggesting the primary cause of congestion in London is bicycles, you are just wrong.

I feel for his family, but surely a contender for a Darwin Award.

@Rockets I was responding to first mate, when I agreed that a contributor does reference bike lanes. 🤣 Are you are not going to address any of the points made, answer any questions, or correct your false statements about a promise that was never made? Basically you're scratching around, jumping from argument to argument, determined to make out that the increase in cycling you said could never happen, is either overstated, or somehow a bad thing. Just admit you're wrong for once in your life.

Yes thanks. Are you going to address any of the points i've made, or questions I've asked before posing new ones? In the video you've dug out, they're naturally talking about what has changed relatively recently. One contributor does reference new Bike lanes. As I said, above: That is not the same as saying that bike lanes are the primary cause of carriageway pressure. As first mate has pointed out: What do you think is the primary cause of carriageway pressure? Do you think it's likely to be from the much fewer people travelling on small bicycles, or the much greater number of people travelling in big private motor vehicles? There aren't even any segregated bike lanes round here that I can think of. There are lot's of cars on the roads though, and they have got bigger - turning roads that previously functioned as two-way streets, into ones where cars have to constantly stop to let each other pass. Do you think that bicycles are the thing that are slowing local buses down? Really? And can we assume you'd support removing some parking on Lordship Lane and making the bus lane 24/7 to increase journey times? Seeing as you're definitely, genuinely, concerned about the issue.

What do you think is the primary cause of carriageway pressure? Do you think it's likely to be from the much smaller number of people travelling on bicycles, or the much larger number of people travelling in big private motor vehicles? And it's interesting how the argument against bike lanes has gone from: They don't work, they're not increasing cycling numbers, to; They have increased, but nowhere near as much as a target that didn't exist, to; They slow buses , which I'm now concerned about (but I oppose removing parking, giving buses priority, or making bus lanes 24/7, because that might impact me and my car) I mean it makes sense, It's not like there are any cars on the roads round here, or that they're getting bigger (turning roads that previously functioned as two-way streets, into ones where cars have to constantly stop to let each other pass) - it's just miles and miles of segregated bike lanes 🤔. This constant pivoting to different arguments, desperately looking for different ways to try and undermine a good news story is not a great look. Keep going. I'm sure that if you just keep throwing 💩 some of it will stick - at least to those who want to believe it.

I assume you'd support removing some parking on Lordship Lane and making the bus lane 24/7 to increase journey times right? Seeing as you're genuinely concerned about the issue.

We need to build houses for social rent. Not 'affordable housing' (which is a euphemism for housing that is completely unaffordable to most) - actual council housing. Taxes do need to go up. We have to stabilise public services and start paying down our national debt to break free of the sway bond markets have over UK governments freedom to act. We are probably all going to have to work longer too. The original UK state pension was there to help those who often had been in physically demanding manual or labouring jobs. The retirement age was set above average life expectancy at the time; It was not designed for a population of mainly white collar workers people to spend one-quarter, to one-third of their adult life in retirement. I know that may sound harsh, and I certainly don't want to work forever, but the fact is that we have an aging population and a diminishing tax base, and no politician who is willing to make fundamental reforms. Mostly we need to grow, and that means at some point, addressing our relationship with the world's largest trading block right on our doorstep. The damage done by Brexit has been crazy. The fact that it's chief architect has managed to come up smelling of roses and may potentially be our next PM is just mind blowing to me.

The landscaped, pedestrian area on the junction of Dulwich Village and Calton Ave

Yikes! That's pretty grim

The congestion is multi factor. There has been a massive increase in roadworks, some reallocation of space to bicycles (still pretty minimal in the overall picture and in the context of massive growth in numbers - the actual topic of this thread btw), and a big growth in the size of the average car. That last factor has probably done a lot more to increase congestion than is discussed often. The UK’s cars have been growing 1cm every two years for some time now, with 52% of cars sold now too large for minimum parking spaces. London's limited and historic road network was not designed for the fashion of large off-road style cars. This is seriously impacting use of valuable city space. Many roads that previously functioned as two-way streets no longer do (Crystal Palace Road being just one, obvious, local example), leading to bottlenecks and queues as vehicles wait to pass each other. That creates congestion that fans out and contributes to increased standstill traffic across the network. And yes, some of the road space that has been re-allocated for cycle lanes will have had an impact, although the number of segregated cycle lanes locally is almost zero. I whole heartedly support local bus lanes being made 24/7 (have called for it before), but I know that those who, when it's convenient for grinding their 'anti bike' axe, will show concern about bus delays, object at all other times to anything that might speed up buses to the detriment of cars. Locally, I would make Lordship Lane a 24/7 bus lane, remove some parking in order to widen both the pavements and the carriageway slightly - making it easier for buses to pass, and reduce the number of cars manoeuvring in and out of spaces on the high street. Similar measures elsewhere would significantly improve the experience of pedestrians and help move our buses more quickly. And just to address your insinuation that when it comes slow bus journeys, that bikes are the problem' - The main cause of interminable congestion in London is too many, too large, private cars, making short, single occupancy journeys.

It's good advice in that video. The 'life saver' check / over the shoulder check is so important. Those two things, position and observation are probably the biggest things you can do to try and stay safe. That said, when you spend most of your time in primary position, which is usually right in London, you will inevitably get occasional, angry responses, especially on less quiet roads than the ones in the video. It's not uncommon to have cars overtake on the wrong side of a traffic island for example, it you correctly take primary position to prevent being squeezed. I like how calm he is. Ogmios' School of Zen motoring is another good example of how temperament is another important factor in making our roads safer and more pleasant.

Yes, I've read your posts. When you talk about 'years of decline in growth', that language is chosen to give a misleading impression. You've repeatedly made a false claim about a promise of a 10 fold increase in cycling, suggested that 'promise' was used to obtain funding, and referenced £800m alongside it. That is entirely misleading and is clearly intended to minimise the success described in the BBC article, by presenting it as some sort of failure against a target that didn't exist. To be clear, 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.

You’ve repeatedly talked about TfL lobbying for money on the ‘promise’ of a ten fold increase in cycling, alongside an £800m investment. There was no 'promise' - that is false. As is the impression that £800m was somehow linked to such a promise. No, the corrections and clarifications started when you questioned whether anyone had suggested cycle lanes were a waste of time / that cycling hasn't increased as a result, implying no one had - so I pointed out that you have - multiple times. You also made that false claim of a ‘promise of a ten fold increase’ in that first post, and talked about £800m spent since 2019 - giving the impression of huge investments in cycle infrastructure, without placing it in the context of annual TfL spend of circa £11 billion. You later started talking of ‘repeated years of growth decline’ and asked what people think is the catalyst for this - a dishonest rhetorical framing to anchor a misleading narrative of 'decline' in the premise - adding ‘I am not buying the infrastructure message’ (underlying further that it was not an honest question). So not 'attacks', but attempts to correct some of the inaccuracies, and highlight misleading statements.

Did anyone actually make this claim - or are you putting words into people's mouths again? You've repeatedly referenced a 'promise of a tenfold increase' that was nothing of the sort, and suggested it was linked to getting £800m of funding, which it was not. It's neither true, nor relevant to this thread: As for this: Nope. Wrong. Carefully re-read the press release. I have. And I read it in the context of Mayors questions and discussions that took place at the time. Have you read it? You've quoted this from the press release 👇 It is also says in the release: "if demand returns." (which you've omitted). What did I say, it was to "accommodate a possible ten-fold increase in cycling and five-fold increase in walking compared to pre-COVID levels should demand return and social distancing remain in place”. Almost word for word from the press release, but even clearer if you read the broader discussions around this at the time. And again, relevant how? You're trying to minimise what is significant and sustained growth in cycling over many years, by misrepresenting something said in 2020. Why? It's just nonsense tactics to deflect and obfuscate in the face of news that doesn't fit the narrative you've been pushing that bike infrastructure is ineffective.

I'm sorry, but the Mayor did not promise a tenfold increase as a condition to "get" a specific £800 million investment: In December 2016, the Mayor pledged a record £770 million investment in cycling initiatives over five years (equating to about £154 million annually), which was near the spending levels of cycling-friendly nations like Denmark and the Netherlands (I don't believe this actually happened by the way). The idea of a potential "tenfold" increase in cycling emerged later during the pandemic as a potential outcome of the new Streetspace policies, not as a target tied to securing a specific £800 million fund. There was a concern in May 2020 (when we had no vaccination for COVID and were due to come out of lockdown), that should social distancing remain in place and demand returned to pre-lockdown levels, London's public transport capacity would potentially be reduced to a fifth of pre-crisis levels. That would leave millions of journeys a day needing to be made by other means. The mayor said at the time that "If people were to switch even a small fraction of those journeys to cars London risks grinding to a halt". They proposed an extension to the bike network and extended pavements, to accommodate a possible ten-fold increase in cycling and five-fold increase in walking compared to pre-COVID levels should demand return and social distancing remain in place - accommodate a possible increase, not create it. As it turned out, demand didn't immediately return and the development and roll out of vaccines removed the need for social distancing to remain in place when it did (so public transport capacity returned to normal). What you have stated is just wrong, and irrelevant to this discussion. As usual, you're just recycling talking points from Facebook groups and 'bloody cyclists' Twitter rants. The rhetorical framing (using the language of 'declines', when describing increases), the cherry picking of data points (ignoring a clear trend), the quotes taken out of context and misrepresented; It's boring. Instead of the 'just asking questions' nonsense and hackneyed propaganda recycled from social media, have an original thought and say what it is clearly. Why are you quoting the LCC - are you saying that's your view?

Do you read what's said before you respond? Rockets was talking about people being 'dazzled at junctions' If you are in a car at a junction and are dazzled / can't see, you don't proceed. And the point - effectively that it makes no difference what you wear if someone isn't driving with due care and attention, is exactly what I've been saying. Whilst it may be wise to wear bright colours, in a generally well lit city environment where you already have lights and reflectors you will already be perfectly visible to those driving cautiously and attentively - it will make no difference to those who are not.

You might slow down if you're momentarily dazzled and you're not at risk of colliding with anyone. You don't proceed at a junction, if you're blinded and at risk of driving into someone (the example given above). What don't you understand about stopping 'if necessary'? This all kind of illustrates the point - regardless of what you're wearing, there will always be some who will claim that they 'couldn't' see you. If you're operating heavy machinery in a built up area you need to be extremely vigilant / careful.