Southwark-wide CPZ

[exdulwicher]

3 hours ago, Rockets said:

! 😉

Could it be, perhaps, that all the measures, including LTNs, new cycle infrastructure (especially across bridges) has had a detrimental impact on congestion in London? 

More people were moved across Blackfriars Bridge once the Cycle Superhighway was put in than before it - it increased the capacity of the bridge by over 15%. To do that with traffic lanes only, you'd have had to have widened the bridge by 3 lanes. The CS moves 70% of people across the bridge daily in spite of only taking up about 20% of the space.

Buses take a significant percentage of the rest, private cars move the least in the least efficient manner. 

Imagine if all those pedestrians and cyclists got into cars or got the bus... Now THAT would have a detrimental impact on congestion! Of course it helps if there are controlled parking zones/paid for parking etc at the destination as well to discourage car trips (free parking is a huge enabler of car journeys) and options such as LTNs, segregated cycle lanes etc to enable the cycle journeys from start to finish.

Basically humans are lazy and cheap - they'll usually select the easiest and cheapest travel options. If you make that cars, they'll use cars, no matter how nicely you ask them not to.

[mr.chicken]

4 hours ago, Rockets said:

Could it be, perhaps, that all the measures, including LTNs, new cycle infrastructure (especially across bridges) has had a detrimental impact on congestion in London?

No.

Edited August 9, 2023 by mr.chicken

[Penguin68]

53 minutes ago, exdulwicher said:

Basically humans are lazy and cheap - they'll usually select the easiest and cheapest travel options. If you make that cars, they'll use cars, no matter how nicely you ask them not to.

Public transport in London is optimised around moving people into the City and West End - so it is true that, unless you are travelling through, and not into, London, or carrying many passengers or equipment etc. using public transport (even though it is both expensive and frequently not dependable) is an optimal choice. Which is why, in rush hours, most people choose it. Even In bad weather, many cyclists choose it, but of course many Londoners are not physically able (or live close enough) to make cycling an option even in good weather. So people journeys across Blackfriars bridge may increase (during rush hours at least) with cycle lanes.

Outside rush hours in Town these lanes are often very ill used, whilst natural traffic levels will be held-up because road space is no longer available for them, which increases exhaust output simply because vehicles take longer, and produce more exhaust fumes, to pass any single point. Safety wouldn't allow it, but cycle lanes which were just rush hour specific would help traffic flow in general.

However, and it's a big however, when you move from travel into or out of the Centre, well supported by public transport, to other movement (e.g. for us, East: West) then public transport is not optimised to support travel in these directions, meaning that it is not an obvious (or sometimes either a convenient or even a possible option for those whose journeys may be time critical). So introduction of road restrictions will definitely have a very real impact on individuals and on issues of traffic pollution - significantly adding to congestion and delay. This is non trivial. 

[exdulwicher]

5 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

This is non trivial. 

It's also non sense. Everything you've written is wrong. 

6 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

Outside rush hours in Town these lanes are often very ill used, whilst natural traffic levels will be held-up...

Natural?!

Traffic is a function of the environment. If you make it easy to drive, people will drive. If you make it easy to walk and cycle, people will walk and cycle.

There's nothing "natural" about any of that. Traffic (of any description - walking, cycling, driving) is not a fixed constant. 

And you're wrong about the "little usage outside rush hour" too, I've seen God only knows how many traffic counts for cycle lanes over the years split down into 15, 30, 60, 120 and 180 minute intervals throughout days and weeks for London and elsewhere. There are definitely peaks and troughs, as there with cars, public transport ridership and even walking but it's not "little usage". 

[CPR Dave]

Excellent post 1st Mate.

[Nigello]

A walk down ED Grove into ED from the Village at what usually is rush hour this morning suggested to me that school traffic is mostly to blame for congestion/pollution around this area. No lines of traffic at all, just a handful of vehicles at the lights. 

[Rockets]

4 hours ago, exdulwicher said:

And you're wrong about the "little usage outside rush hour" too, I've seen God only knows how many traffic counts for cycle lanes over the years split down into 15, 30, 60, 120 and 180 minute intervals throughout days and weeks for London and elsewhere. There are definitely peaks and troughs, as there with cars, public transport ridership and even walking but it's not "little usage". 

 Not convinced. Just take a walk through town after morning rush hour and you will see little capacity of the bike lanes being used yet all the capacity of the reduced road space being used. It's a commuter peak and that's it.

 

Will Norman and the cycle lobby bigged up a tenfold increase in cycling that never materialised, they needed that to justify the investment and damage to other forms of transport but they have got nowhere near that and I hope some serious questions are being asked as to why.

Edited August 9, 2023 by Rockets

[snowy]

Again this is all untrue.

[Rockets]

https://bikebiz.com/mayors-streetspace-plan-could-see-cycling-increased-tenfold-post-lockdown/amp/

 

Snowy, your face has gone so red you've melted...! 😉

[snowy]

You're having a reading comprehension lapse again. 

[malumbu]

I find your post really sad Rocks.  There is a positive article about how cycling could increase ten fold post COVID.  Could not will.  And you are so happy when this 'non-commitment' isn't delivered.  

Just checking the cricket scores to see the shocking headline Rockets explode.  I know you are angry Rocks but that angry?  The I realised it was a reference to a sort of cricket match

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/cricket/66453604

 

[Rockets]

I never said he said it will...I said he was bigging up a ten-fold increase...we haven't reached close to a one fold increase yet have we so some way to go don't you think...bottom line is the revolution never happened and there is nothing to indicate it ever will? He clearly talks about post-Covid when things return to normal - aren't we there yet?

I am not angry...just correcting Snowy's "it's all untrue" statement - am I not allowed to do that? In tne last two days you and Mr Chicken have accused me of being both angry and hateful, two things i am most certainly not and nothing in my posts would indicate that...perhaps you should take more time to reflect before posting such comments in future?

 

Here's a really good cricketing metaphor for you to mull...don't keep bowling bouncers if they keep getting hit for six! 😉

 

 

1 hour ago, snowy said:

You're having a reading comprehension lapse again. 

???? - could you explain what you mean by that as it makes no sense at all to me?

[snowy]

You didn't correct anything at all. 

[alice]

Give up. No one is changing their minds. The ‘facts’ are disputed by everyday evidence. 
and forasmall group it’s getting nasty. The rest of us don’t get a look in. 

[first mate]

It is just more iffy tactics to derail, distract and undermine. You have one poster describing others as irrational, as adopting the tactics of US Republicans and Tories, of lying or putting words into that poster's mouth. Another insinuates those who do not agree with them are hate filled or have mental health problems. What a lovely bunch.

[malumbu]

In deed Alice, generally this is not debating an issue but flinging mud.  I try not to do this beyond the odd bit of banter which I expect is misread.

Ultimately it's whether we agree that there needs to be action to reduce car use and if so what is the best option - any restrictions on roads and/or charges are probably likely to upset more people than they please, but most will get over it.

There was a brief discussion on the right to drive vs the privilege.  I think it was on this thread but who knows they all seem to blend into one.

I firmly believe that drivers no longer have the right to drive what they want, when they want, where they want and how they want.   Some of this is being addressed eg closing roads (which has always happened), charging schemes and even the basics such as speed limits and alcohol limits.  The ULEZ, LTNs and CPZs, but there may be other options (and I started a thread on this that nobody posted on!).

So I think your are either pro-intervention (whatever that may be) or believe that the status quo should be preserved.

My brain is empty so hopefully this is my last comment on the subject (hooray!)

 

 

Edited August 9, 2023 by malumbu

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, snowy said:

Again this is all untrue.

But clearly it is not all untrue is it?

Which part of it was untrue

15 minutes ago, snowy said:

You didn't correct anything at all. 

But I did. A very quick Internet search found the article in which Will Norman bigged up a ten fold increase in cycling so it is clearly true not untrue. 

And here is a link to an article with the Mayor "predicting" the same thing:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2020/05/06/pop-up-cycleway-for-park-lane-as-tenfold-increase-in-cycling-predicted-for-london/

 

Honestly, do a quick Internet search before you accuse someone of posting something that is not true...it avoids egg on the face! The Mayor and Will Norman went on a charm offensive to help sell-in what they were doing (how they were spending the millions of £) with Streetspace during the pandemic and talked about a ten-fold increase in cycling.

 

Alice you are right there are a group on here getting increasingly nasty in their posting who seem to do not like it when the truth is presented to them. I do hope they take stock and return to some semblance of normality. Have a debate by all means but don't resort to playground tactics.

[march46]

https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/southwark/its-made-the-place-much-nicer-residents-speak-about-life-after-controlled-parking-zones/
 

Good to see Southwark News reporting the positives of CPZs

[first mate]

But I thought the journalism was sub standard and on a par with The Daily Mail. At least that was what was being said a few days ago.

That little volte face aside, I think it is a balanced article with one man who used to live in Camberwell saying he liked the CPZ, another, who also says he is from Camberwell and who is Southwark Cyclists but wishes to be anonymous, also likes the CPZ.

The article also points out major opposition to CPZ  in ED and Nunhead, and that residents in Nunhead have been told they will have a chance to say no to CPZ but borough-wide CPZ will happen anyway!? Can anyone shed light on the  last bit?

 

Edited August 9, 2023 by first mate

[Charles Martel]

4 hours ago, march46 said:

https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/southwark/its-made-the-place-much-nicer-residents-speak-about-life-after-controlled-parking-zones/
 

Good to see Southwark News reporting the positives of CPZs

The article is poorly written. A CPZ that comes into force after a proper consultation in an area with high traffic density like Camberwell or Walworth is obviously very different to imposing a CPZ on  quiet residential areas with no parking pressure at all. That should have been clearly stated as lack of consultation is the reason that people are protesting. It is not about the general idea of a CPZ.

“Up until the CPZ was introduced, it used to be really chaotic to the west of the Walworth Road,” he explained, “with lots of drivers coming in every day to park and head off to the tube station or to catch the buses on the Walworth Road.

“The CPZ pretty much stopped this overnight with far fewer cars driving around the area and parking wherever they could. Having all of the bays marked out also made things far safer, especially for people who are disabled as the dropped kerbs were protected with yellow lines and were much less likely to be parked over.”

Does anyone really think the situation is the same in East Dulwich?

Please read the letter opposing the introduction of a borough wide CPZ. It states the legal requirement for consultation and simply requests that this be followed in all areas now as it has been before.

https://opposethecpz.org/2023/07/27/southwark-wide-petition/

[exdulwicher]

11 hours ago, first mate said:

The article also points out major opposition to CPZ  in ED and Nunhead, and that residents in Nunhead have been told they will have a chance to say no to CPZ but borough-wide CPZ will happen anyway!? Can anyone shed light on the  last bit?

CPZ are designed to apply to a relatively small area (think sort of LTN size). That's because each area will have different requirements in terms of permits, parking availability and so on but a CPZ is easier than having multiple signs covering individual parking bays.

So you can't really have "a borough wide CPZ" - what you can have is a collection of individual CPZs which apply across the whole borough. So you might have one CPZ around (eg) North Dulwich, then a neighbouring CPZ applying over (eg) Dulwich Village, then another one maybe from Court Lane over to Townley. And so on.

Not necessarily the same timings for each one.

[first mate]

I think I had understood that bit Ex. I am more interested in what the report says about Nunhead residents being told they will have an opportunity to say no to a CPZ but that CPZs will go ahead anyway. 

This may be poor reporting or just badly expressed, but it could sound like 'you can say no and we will note your objection but our minds are already made up'. Can anyone confirm if this is the case? 

Also, if this is what Nunhead residents were told then what is the mechanism by which they will be/ are able to express an objection?

Edited August 10, 2023 by first mate

[Rockets]

Would they not have to reset and restart the consultation in its entirety and start again? I can't imagine any politician agreeing to do that, it's the mother of all U-turns and the charge of wasting taxpayers money could be levelled at them. And if they did it for one they would need to do it for the Dulwich ones too.

 

And Snowy, that ten-fold increase Will and Sadiq were talking up should arrive in some time around 2320 given the current rate of cycling growth (13% between 2019 and 2022 according to TFL) - they must have omitted that part of their story.

I joke but in all seriousness you can't just keep throwing money, resources and road space to something if it isn't ever going to deliver and that debate should be happening now.

[exdulwicher]

6 minutes ago, Rockets said:

 joke but in all seriousness you can't just keep throwing money, resources and road space to something if it isn't ever going to deliver and that debate should be happening now.

The answer is to do more.

The problem is that what has been delivered so far is quite piecemeal, it goes to consultation, gets watered down, re-consulted, and eventually, years later, something gets half delivered with the remaining half subject to further funding. 

And each iteration, each development, gets a couple more % cycling so the objections of "well it hasn't worked, it hasn't delivered" get louder and populist politicians start wavering and dithering so nothing more gets done.

The answer is to do what they've done in Paris, Oslo and various other cities. Go in hard, go in big and just get it done. Everyone knows what works, it's almost always got big majority support and in a lot of cases, quick win stuff like LTNs can be tweaked further down the line if required.

The UK is largely terrible at infrastructure and long term strategic planning.

[Spartacus]

Sounds like hs2 

Just throw more money at it, despite the rational (people travelling to work in offices) now being diluted. 

Throwing money at something without valid evaluation is how big projects fail. 

Therfore Rock's raises a fair point, we need to evaluate what is working well, look at what isn't and tweak before carrying on.