If you voted Labour did you expect and mandate changes in ED today?

[first mate]

Not wanting to get into a broad debate about the mechanisms of local politics but just to ask that if you voted in Labour at the last Council elections did you expect the sort and speed of change we are now experiencing in ED re 20 mph, closing roads, changes to junctions, roadworks everywhere, mass reduction of parking, an agenda to get you to use a bike?

Did you expect to be further consulted before actions were taken or do you fully support the speed of change we are now experiencing and trust it will all turn out for the good?

[edhistory]

Have Labour Party representatives been instructed not to participate in the EDF?

[first mate]

I don't know, one made a brief appearance on here and was warmly welcomed, however his only comments were to crticise James Barber for taking too much credit for change in ED and some forum users for being anonymous snides.

[richard tudor]

I did not vote for labour, however I would expect to be consulted if such changes are made.

Unfortunately most of Southwark residents have a living to make and many changes are raised by the few who have the ear of Cllrs with similar views and the time to push their personnel agendas.

It has always been the same.

To get most of these through all you need is a yellow note on an out off the way lamp post or a notice in a local paper nobody reads.

[apbremer]

Voted for 'em but never again, particularly with this clown Corbyn.

[EDmummy]

Are all the changes Southwark backed or are some of them TfL/London Mayoral changes. I get confused - for instance many changes at Oval and Elephant are TfL.

[rodneybewes]

first mate Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Not wanting to get into a broad debate about the

> mechanisms of local politics but just to ask that

> if you voted in Labour at the last Council

> elections did you expect the sort and speed of

> change we are now experiencing in ED re 20 mph,

> closing roads, changes to junctions, roadworks

> everywhere, mass reduction of parking, an agenda

> to get you to use a bike?

>

> Did you expect to be further consulted before

> actions were taken or do you fully support the

> speed of change we are now experiencing and trust

> it will all turn out for the good?

I did expect, fully support and actively campaigned for the speed limits and expansion of bike lanes (not fully implemented in my opinion). I expect them to carry out their electoral promises, as they should.

I also think democracy is a two way street and citizens have a duty to actively engage in the process properly rather than sitting on their arses and getting powerlessly outraged by things their local councils do. If you want to change things get out there and change them. Ironically, as mass communication has improved our ability to communicate with the people we vote in we've become more and more lazy and useless at doing anything ourselves. It's also telling that the majority of threads on this forum are not about poverty, food banks, immigration etc but about how people drive around town.

By the way, you've lumped a whole load of things together there and your use of "agenda" is charged. It's clearly a loaded question.

[Penguin68]

Whilst it is true that all parties go into elections with a shopping list - often quite long - it is more normal to implement without further consultation only those that have figured as major 'top line' policy commitments - i.e. those which might be expected to have been a significant topic of election debate. To go in with pages of 'policy' and to act as if each and everyone one of these has the full support of the electorate is either naive or duplicitous.

I did not gather from what little election literature that I received that the labour party was so anti-car (and indeed it would appear anti-tree).

The 20mph policy was one I did recognise (and, for purely residential streets supported), but had anticipated that it might have been implemented with more thought and finesse. I did not understand that it would be applied to all roads that Southwark (rather than TfL) had 'control of' without any further consideration. This is particularly confusing for us living at the bottom tip of Southwark, where any travel (on non-residential roads, normally) tends to take you quickly into neighbouring boroughs with different policies on speed.

The US allows (in their sort of 'local' elections) for particular policy planks to be put forward (outwith the wider election) as local referenda which can be voted on individually. It appears that the labour party may be treating their individual local manifesto policies as if the more general council election was indeed endorsing each of these as if being individually voted on.

Edited to say - I understood that labour was pro-safety (20 mph) and pro-cycling - I had not drawn from their literature, possibly because I did not read it forensically, that they were additionally hoping to drive out (sorry) cars and car driving from the borough on top of improving safety and encouraging cycling. Indeed, considering the poverty of mass transit in SE London, I had not worked out that the labour preferred (and ideally only) means of future transport would be cycling.

[johnhinton]

I'd tend to agree with Penguin; in any case, I wouldn't assume the mere mention of an item in a manifesto was a cast-iron promise to implement. I think Southwark was wrong to proceed as recklessly as it did, but that won't stop me from voting Labour again (because I wouldn't touch the alternatives with a bargepole).

However, I certainly didn't vote for TFL, which seems to me to be even more heavy-handed and unaccountable, and I loathe the self-serving radio ads.

[uncleglen]

I was at a council meeting some years ago and the Tory councillor was making a point about a particular street in Dulwich which was the subject of the agenda item. One of the Labourites( a well known one) got up and said that although he did not know anything about the road and the situation in question, he was opposed to what the Tory councillor had said....and it was obvious to those present that the Tory councillor was right and that the Labourite just opposed him because he was a Tory...I've never voted Labour and I never would- especially after that piece of abject lunacy.

[rodneybewes]

I'm not too bothered about the micro detail of road closures, they might or might not be a good thing according to their specific circumstances. The blanket 20mph speed limit has been broadcast all over the place and is being implemented pretty much across the board. I wouldn't expect them to consult on that on a road by road basis, I'd expect them to implement it as it is a broad manifesto promise. I'm all for local democracy but not at the expense of actually getting things done. The idea of a war on motorists is pathetic, they are the most pampered group in the capital. If a terrorist group caused the kind of damage on London that motorists did we'd be bombing a small country right now. Two things have made a massive difference to life in central London - the congestion charge and the 20mph limit in the city. Roll them out across the board I say.

As a completely separate point - which it is - I only agree that promoting cycling at the expense of cars is the way to go is because it's the most feasible. If they made moving pedestrian walkways to get about London I'd absolutely support that, but they won't. There is no status quo when it comes to driving in London - it is just getting worse. Doing nothing is not an option.

@Uncleglen - if you are going to send politicians to Coventry for being self-serving, biased idiots then you wouldn't vote for any of the them, surely?

[christinaH]

I too voted for Labour and expected them to carryout the promise of the 20mph zone without further consultation. I am a car driver but welcome this change our residential road is an hazard with those speeding at about 40mph and I am shocked each day with the road rage I can hear from my home. I don't understand how people can become so angry and at minor annoyances! Off point I know.

I am not sure all the road works are linked to this though? there are always lots of road works this time of year as councils use up their budgets?

[Scootingover]

Utterly bonkers - Southwark and TfL. Not an ounce of sense between them but enough bravado and self interest to spend public taxes and be unaccountable for the failure to deliver.

We need a blended plan for a variety of transport to suit all. Cycling is only for and will only suit a small percentage. Welcome it, make people safe, but don't make it an excuse for failing to deliver proper public transport.

I use bus, train and tube. Walk loads and will run if I can. No bike.

Let's get some balance.

[Blah Blah]

27% of all journeys in London during rush hour are by cycle Scooting, so I don't know how you can say that cycling is only for a small percentage.

[BrandNewGuy]

Those are very naughty stats, Blah Blah.

1 cyclist on one bike = one journey.

70 people on one bus = one journey.

300 people on one train = one journey.

[Loz]

I find it a little surprising that even 27% of vehicles during rush hour are bicycles. I suspect that is just for certain popular bike routes.

[Blah Blah]

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/technical-note-04-how-has-cycling-grown-in-london.pdf

"In some locations, cyclists account for a significant proportion of the traffic. Cycle traffic is rising fast on the central London Thames road crossings, and counts carried out in the City of London in October 2012 found that cyclists accounted for around a third of the vehicular traffic in the morning and evening peaks."

https://www.london.gov.uk/media/mayor-press-releases/2015/06/london-cycling-now-the-highest-on-record-as-rate-of-deaths-and

The rush hour journeys were measured in the City and Central London and it is those figures that justify the spending on cycle infrastructure in those areas. So my point was that Scooting is quite wrong to suggest the cycling infrastructure is carried out disproportionately to need. He seems also to have forgotten that Crossrail, one of the most expensive transport infrastructure projects ever is ongoing and that new additions like DLR are relatively recent too. So there is plenty of investment in transport and it's ongoing.

[first mate]

Do we know what proportion of those are Boris Bikes, or even folding bikes where part of the journey is by bus, train or car? The point being that useage within central London does not necessarily correlate with journeys into London- the latter being relevant to changes to infrastructure in ED.

[first mate]

Penguin68, I agree with you and that was the point of the question. I do not recall major changes to junctions, proposed road closures or 20mph on every arterial road possible, as headlining policies. On the other hand free swimming was......?

It is my view that the speed and breadth of current change was not mandated and we should have been consulted. Cycling infrastructure is being built under the guidance of a Dutch expert; as many have said, London is not Amsterdam.

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Whilst it is true that all parties go into

> elections with a shopping list - often quite long

> - it is more normal to implement without further

> consultation only those that have figured as major

> 'top line' policy commitments - i.e. those which

> might be expected to have been a significant topic

> of election debate. To go in with pages of

> 'policy' and to act as if each and everyone one of

> these has the full support of the electorate is

> either naive or duplicitous.

>

> I did not gather from what little election

> literature that I received that the labour party

> was so anti-car (and indeed it would appear

> anti-tree).

>

> The 20mph policy was one I did recognise (and, for

> purely residential streets supported), but had

> anticipated that it might have been implemented

> with more thought and finesse. I did not

> understand that it would be applied to all roads

> that Southwark (rather than TfL) had 'control of'

> without any further consideration. This is

> particularly confusing for us living at the bottom

> tip of Southwark, where any travel (on

> non-residential roads, normally) tends to take you

> quickly into neighbouring boroughs with different

> policies on speed.

>

> The US allows (in their sort of 'local' elections)

> for particular policy planks to be put forward

> (outwith the wider election) as local referenda

> which can be voted on individually. It appears

> that the labour party may be treating their

> individual local manifesto policies as if the more

> general council election was indeed endorsing each

> of these as if being individually voted on.

>

> Edited to say - I understood that labour was

> pro-safety (20 mph) and pro-cycling - I had not

> drawn from their literature, possibly because I

> did not read it forensically, that they were

> additionally hoping to drive out (sorry) cars and

> car driving from the borough on top of improving

> safety and encouraging cycling. Indeed,

> considering the poverty of mass transit in SE

> London, I had not worked out that the labour

> preferred (and ideally only) means of future

> transport would be cycling.

[Scootingover]

Agree.

Cyclists need to be safe and catered for but so do the rest of road and public transport users.

Stats used again to justify...........

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Those are very naughty stats, Blah Blah.

> 1 cyclist on one bike = one journey.

> 70 people on one bus = one journey.

> 300 people on one train = one journey.

[LondonMix]

BrandNewGuy- are you sure that is how journeys are calculated. I don't think everyone on a bus counts as a single journey. From memory its done per person across all modes of travel.

ETA- Anecdotal sampling of my friends in the area suggests that half of them that commute into central London for work use a bike. I / we are relatively young and in white collar jobs so I know that is going to be a relative high percentage compared to the population as a whole. However, I don't find the stat of 27% hard to believe at all.

[simonethebeaver]

The quote above says that the 27% is of 'vehicular traffic' not journeys. I also know plenty of people who commute by bike but certainly not a quarter. I personally commute by public transport and would be terrified to cycle in, having inherent poor balance that makes me a very wobbly cyclist. I wouldn't cycle in Amsterdam either.

[rodneybewes]

The 20mph speed limit change was well publicised and is pretty much London wide now. Agreed, I didn't see anything about individual local road closures, although I fully expected to see them narrowing lanes and redesigning junctions etc as part of the extension of the cycle networks. None of that is a great surprise.

first mate Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Penguin68, I agree with you and that was the point

> of the question. I do not recall major changes to

> junctions, proposed road closures or 20mph on

> every arterial road possible, as headlining

> policies. On the other hand free swimming

> was......?

>

> It is my view that the speed and breadth of

> current change was not mandated and we should have

> been consulted. Cycling infrastructure is being

> built under the guidance of a Dutch expert; as

> many have said, London is not Amsterdam.

>

>

[LondonMix]

Thanks simon, I missed the vehicular traffic qualifier. That makes sense.

simonethebeaver Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The quote above says that the 27% is of 'vehicular

> traffic' not journeys. I also know plenty of

> people who commute by bike but certainly not a

> quarter. I personally commute by public transport

> and would be terrified to cycle in, having

> inherent poor balance that makes me a very wobbly

> cyclist. I wouldn't cycle in Amsterdam either.

[Blah Blah]

I don't understand why anyone is attacking cycle netwrok provision in ED as there isn't really anything significant to speak of. We have no cycle super highway and many of the cycle routes are on residential roads. It's not really an issue.

There are however lots of road humps and traffic calming measures, which were not put there because of cyclists, but because of drivers unable to adhere to speed limits or drive according to conditions and common sense safety. I'll be the first to say there are too many humps and I've criticised the blanket 20mpr limit too, but let's not confuse cycling safety with measures to make drivers stick to rules of the highway.