first mate

Ah yes, all car drivers and those that 'support' car use are angry and look exactly like Victor Meldrew. But wait, don't you also use a car from time to time, when you go off on your hols to the continent or do your community service thang, driving round checking bus lanes and junctions? Is this perchance who you see in the mirror of a mornin'? 😉

It is the Council who have referenced LL in regard to parking and businesses in their piece on CPZ. If completely unrelated it seems an odd thing to do.

If that was the case, the Council would not have highlighted the relationship between businesses and parking on LL alongside its CPZ plans. I don't know why you have suddenly popped in pavement width. The Council did not mention it in its CPZ statement and neither did I.

Are you saying the Bus Union Rep was selectively reporting? Are you implying that the Rep is biased against cyclists and therefore what he reported to the LA session is not to be trusted? You do sometimes seem to take the line that if someone says something about cycle infrastructure or cyclists, that you do not agree with, this is because they are angry or dislike cyclists (even when the observations you disagree with are made by other cyclists).

@Earl Aelfheah The Council's own statement, which I have just given you, makes that link. Were the impact of CPZ and parking on LL completely unrelated, as you maintain, then the Council would have had no need to highlight it.

Below is what the Council said about their CPZ plans, explaining LL would not be included, although streets adjacent on one side would be. The reason for this non inclusion was explained as preserving parking for visitors to LL thereby protecting business interests. It was added that to further improve visitor parking paid for spaces would be added to streets adjacent to LL. To pretend the LL and CPZ plans were in no way linked is disingenuous. The Council knew that businesses would be more likely to object to local CPZ if they lost parking spaces.

March, it was specifically mentioned in the overall plans. Clearly CPZ would remove swathes of parking for visitors in cars at various time of day, do the Council made a point of saying parking provision on LL would not be affected. This was a Council statement not my conflation. At the time of the CPZ consultation all of you who want to remove parking on LL stayed very quiet. I flagged the bus issue up in the relevant threads- not one of you commented. Once the consultation was over and CPZ results and implementation announced, then suddenly the clamour to remove all parking on LL begins. It does look like playing the long game.

Eh, I think objections were to the overall costs of landscaping. But you seem to be introducing a new take on all this? It was a cyclist that first complained about the Duliwch Square cycle way resurface and others agreed. Later @Malumbu made a joke about this and Rockets commented that this was possibly in poor taste. It feels a bit like you are trying to find an angle to change the subject. I should point out that cyclists should not be cycling on the bulk of the square anyway. Aside from that, if the area had been gritted there may not have been an issue? Whose responsibilty is gritting for this area?

@Earl Aelfheah said : "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". Actually, I don't think you have clearly stated removing space on LL to improve bus passage on this thread, perhaps I missed it, I am sure you will re- post if I did. Can we conclude then that you do think there is an issue with slower bus speeds on LL? Can we also conclude that you would not support the Council's stated CPZ plans where they say they will preserve existing parking on LL to support visitors in cars to shops on the Lane?

Earl, I'm fine, are you okay? I keep asking you if you want removal of parking on LL in order to mitigate bus speeds, or are bus speeds on LL not a factor, in your view? You seem unwilling to answer this directly, for some reason? The Council CPZ stated plans have factored in retaining the parking spaces on LL; would you then say you disagree with that plan? Remember, they felt it was important to include parking on LL to protect businesses and "balance" the needs of visitors in cars with those of residents. Do you disagree with the Council on the importance of supporting the needs of businesses and visitors in cars to Lordship Lane?

@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".

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.

Isn't removal of parking spaces on LL what you are asking for? Aren't you suggesting this would improve local bus service speeds along LL or are you now saying there is not a problem with buses on LL? If the latter, then fine, no need to remove spaces after all.

I have been asking questions abut this local conundrum of LL lane, CPZ and bus speeds for a long time and raised it earlier in this thread. 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. 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. The broader discussion on London-wide measures is of interest but not to the same degree as the former.

That's a bit of a swerve there Earl. I guess that since CPZ plans may inhibit ways to mitigate LL bus speeds you may have to become interested?