first mate

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?

I can recommend Dulwich Village. Quite quiet yesterday.

@Earl Aelfheah, how do you square the Council's stated CPZ agenda and plans (preserving parking on LL) with slower bus speeds? Are you suggesting that buses were not impacted by this earlier in the summer, when consultation was underway? When I raised the issue of bus speeds you were all silent on the subject. Why? I note you prefer to focus on the London-wide area rather than local.

I responded with the above. Not one of the pro CPZ/LTN crowd commented on the bus aspect. Now suddenly a number of you are pursuing this. It really does look like a cynical long game.

I want to remind everyone what the Council said around the time of the most recent CPZ consultation- this was kindly posted by March

I would add that the significantly increased event structure of last year, with trackway everywhere as well as the huge metal barriers, completely changes the feel of the park. I agree with Fishboy that there is a convenient blending of park with the Common, to give the impression that only a small section is used. I still do not understand why this event cannot be moved wholesale to the Common. It would be closer to transport hubs and all other events seem to take place on the Common.

Bringing this all down to local level, what are your thoughts on the Council's desire to introduce CPZ but also to 'balance' the parking needs of shoppers in cars with those of local residents? They have proposed preserving and possibly increasing visitor parking on Lordship Lane in order to support shoppers in cars and also local businesses. Given the clamour now that it is necessary to remove parking on LL to speed up buses, do you think the Council's CPZ proposition was a cynical and dishonest manoeuvre?

This is what the panel of experts in the part of the session I was able to listen to said. As I said before, they did not seem to emphasise one factor over the other, so the significance of each factor was not addressed. Cars and especially parking were also mentioned but not emphasised as being the most important. Perhaps they were later in the session, but not in the section I heard.

I'd go with the expert opinion at the LA panel which seemed balanced and reasonable. In the part I listened to, traffic and parking was mentioned (especially couriers) but no more emphasised than cycle lanes, public utilities- 'emergency' works (especially Thames Water), road design interventions like box junctions (viewed by the bus driver rep as primarily about money-making). Strangely, no mention of car length or size. This is where Earl started to try to get the kind if answer he wanted. When that failed, he changed Rocket's wording, misattributed it to me and then told me I was wrong to say that! Wow! Are you okay? Go back and read. That's certainly not how I read it.

Just for complete accuracy, here is the quote by Rockets. I also see that Earl rather dishonestly changed the words, removing "one of the" to a stronger "the" which rather changes emphasis and therefore meaning. So Earl has a number of times not only stated I have said something I have not but meddled with the quote to better serve his purpose. @Earl AelfheahDid you respond?