|
|
Post by snoggle on May 9, 2019 10:27:05 GMT
Interesting to see a sudden mad dash to get cycle lane schemes into consultation and theoretically "happening" as we are one year away from the Mayoral Elections. You might think the Mayor was trying to appease the "p*ssed off" cycling lobby. |
|
|
|
Post by ronnie on May 9, 2019 21:34:47 GMT
Interesting to see a sudden mad dash to get cycle lane schemes into consultation and theoretically "happening" as we are one year away from the Mayoral Elections. You might think the Mayor was trying to appease the "p*ssed off" cycling lobby. This is going to run into opposition in IoD. There have been a few proposed cycle paths shared on the IoD Facebook group. Needless to say, given there are only 2 roads to leave the IoD plus the narrowness thereof, any cycle lanes would be highly unwelcome. Those painted blue lines are farcical to be honest |
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on May 10, 2019 20:09:57 GMT
I'm suspicious of the term 'cycle route'. As far as I know there is no hindrance to anyone hopping on to a bicycle and cycling from Hackney to the Isle of Dogs, or virtually anywhere else. If a bus route is run from Hackney to the Isle of Dogs, then you know you'll have to get off at some stage and, if necessary, seek another bus where available, whereas the cyclist has the freedom to continue pedalling to their heart's content. So when TfL talk about 'creating a cycle route' they will, in almost every instance, be depriving another road, or 'route', user of some of their previous space. TfL cannot pretend that it's only cars, vans and lorries that will be affected. Any of these roads which see bus route usage will also be affected to some degree, and we've seen bus lanes taken out of use on some roads as there was no longer any room for them. All I do know is that with every new cycle route comes disruption while it's created, often for far longer than predicted and at much more capital expense than foreseen. The short/medium term outlook for bus passengers isn't good, and in many cases is dire with loss of patronage that may take years to recover, if ever.
|
|
|
|
Post by redbus on May 10, 2019 22:38:18 GMT
I'm suspicious of the term 'cycle route'. As far as I know there is no hindrance to anyone hopping on to a bicycle and cycling from Hackney to the Isle of Dogs, or virtually anywhere else. If a bus route is run from Hackney to the Isle of Dogs, then you know you'll have to get off at some stage and, if necessary, seek another bus where available, whereas the cyclist has the freedom to continue pedalling to their heart's content. So when TfL talk about 'creating a cycle route' they will, in almost every instance, be depriving another road, or 'route', user of some of their previous space. TfL cannot pretend that it's only cars, vans and lorries that will be affected. Any of these roads which see bus route usage will also be affected to some degree, and we've seen bus lanes taken out of use on some roads as there was no longer any room for them. All I do know is that with every new cycle route comes disruption while it's created, often for far longer than predicted and at much more capital expense than foreseen. The short/medium term outlook for bus passengers isn't good, and in many cases is dire with loss of patronage that may take years to recover, if ever. Of cyclists can cycle wherever they want and don't need a cycle lane to do so. It is right to encourage cycling (and for that matter, buses and trains) within reason and so provide safe cycling infrastructure, but that has to be balanced against other uses. We have to do better to work out how we can have these safe cycling routes without make life more difficult for others, particularly bus passengers. I think it is quite possible to do better, there just needs the will to do it.
We also need to provide useful cycling infrastructure, that is infrastructure that is actually used by cyclists. I regularly see cyclists using the normal roads in preference to cycle lanes (Old Street towards Shoreditch being an example), and to me this is the wheel falling off.
|
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on May 10, 2019 23:00:24 GMT
I'm suspicious of the term 'cycle route'. As far as I know there is no hindrance to anyone hopping on to a bicycle and cycling from Hackney to the Isle of Dogs, or virtually anywhere else. If a bus route is run from Hackney to the Isle of Dogs, then you know you'll have to get off at some stage and, if necessary, seek another bus where available, whereas the cyclist has the freedom to continue pedalling to their heart's content. So when TfL talk about 'creating a cycle route' they will, in almost every instance, be depriving another road, or 'route', user of some of their previous space. TfL cannot pretend that it's only cars, vans and lorries that will be affected. Any of these roads which see bus route usage will also be affected to some degree, and we've seen bus lanes taken out of use on some roads as there was no longer any room for them. All I do know is that with every new cycle route comes disruption while it's created, often for far longer than predicted and at much more capital expense than foreseen. The short/medium term outlook for bus passengers isn't good, and in many cases is dire with loss of patronage that may take years to recover, if ever. Of cyclists can cycle wherever they want and don't need a cycle lane to do so. It is right to encourage cycling (and for that matter, buses and trains) within reason and so provide safe cycling infrastructure, but that has to be balanced against other uses. We have to do better to work out how we can have these safe cycling routes without make life more difficult for others, particularly bus passengers. I think it is quite possible to do better, there just needs the will to do it.
We also need to provide useful cycling infrastructure, that is infrastructure that is actually used by cyclists. I regularly see cyclists using the normal roads in preference to cycle lanes (Old Street towards Shoreditch being an example), and to me this is the wheel falling off.
Cycling is, I am sure, something that is beneficial to those that do it, and I wouldn't like to see it discouraged. I was personally put off it when my brakes failed as I was on a downhill stretch of Westhorne Avenue approaching the roundabout with the A20 going at about 30 mph: I was only 13 at the time and survived with only a few bruises and a mangled bike to tell the tale. I did cycle a few times later, principally when I lived in Amsterdam for a while, but have approached it with wariness and, sadly, am in no physical state to ever do it again. I share your experience of seeing cycle lanes shunned in many cases, but, if I were a cyclist, I'd probably do so too as they can be unnecessary and 'over the top'. There have to be better ways of addressing it than London's apparent current model. When I lived in Amsterdam trams and bikes, mopeds even, co-existed well, though it is and was a totally different city from London. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on May 10, 2019 23:38:18 GMT
I'm suspicious of the term 'cycle route'. As far as I know there is no hindrance to anyone hopping on to a bicycle and cycling from Hackney to the Isle of Dogs, or virtually anywhere else. If a bus route is run from Hackney to the Isle of Dogs, then you know you'll have to get off at some stage and, if necessary, seek another bus where available, whereas the cyclist has the freedom to continue pedalling to their heart's content. So when TfL talk about 'creating a cycle route' they will, in almost every instance, be depriving another road, or 'route', user of some of their previous space. TfL cannot pretend that it's only cars, vans and lorries that will be affected. Any of these roads which see bus route usage will also be affected to some degree, and we've seen bus lanes taken out of use on some roads as there was no longer any room for them. All I do know is that with every new cycle route comes disruption while it's created, often for far longer than predicted and at much more capital expense than foreseen. The short/medium term outlook for bus passengers isn't good, and in many cases is dire with loss of patronage that may take years to recover, if ever. Of cyclists can cycle wherever they want and don't need a cycle lane to do so. It is right to encourage cycling (and for that matter, buses and trains) within reason and so provide safe cycling infrastructure, but that has to be balanced against other uses. We have to do better to work out how we can have these safe cycling routes without make life more difficult for others, particularly bus passengers. I think it is quite possible to do better, there just needs the will to do it.
We also need to provide useful cycling infrastructure, that is infrastructure that is actually used by cyclists. I regularly see cyclists using the normal roads in preference to cycle lanes (Old Street towards Shoreditch being an example), and to me this is the wheel falling off.
Personally, what they should of done was first reduce congestion significantly by removing many cars off the road within London by reducing short trips which would then tackle the pollution element far more than poxy ULEZ zones. Then you build your cycling infrastructure which would then hardly affect buses as the congestion would have dramatically reduced to cause little impact. Instead, it's all done backwards or half hearted with no real success anywhere - bus travel gets slower, congestion increases, pollution is still an issue and cyclists see benefits but yet want more. |
|
|
|
Post by redbus on May 11, 2019 13:47:19 GMT
Of cyclists can cycle wherever they want and don't need a cycle lane to do so. It is right to encourage cycling (and for that matter, buses and trains) within reason and so provide safe cycling infrastructure, but that has to be balanced against other uses. We have to do better to work out how we can have these safe cycling routes without make life more difficult for others, particularly bus passengers. I think it is quite possible to do better, there just needs the will to do it.
We also need to provide useful cycling infrastructure, that is infrastructure that is actually used by cyclists. I regularly see cyclists using the normal roads in preference to cycle lanes (Old Street towards Shoreditch being an example), and to me this is the wheel falling off.
Personally, what they should of done was first reduce congestion significantly by removing many cars off the road within London by reducing short trips which would then tackle the pollution element far more than poxy ULEZ zones. Then you build your cycling infrastructure which would then hardly affect buses as the congestion would have dramatically reduced to cause little impact. Instead, it's all done backwards or half hearted with no real success anywhere - bus travel gets slower, congestion increases, pollution is still an issue and cyclists see benefits but yet want more. Ideally yes, but getting rid of cars is only part of the story. A lot of the problems are in central London which doesn't really have a private car problem, and certainly not during congestion charging hours. It does have a terrible traffic problem, but that is not caused by private cars, it is caused primarily by three factors :-
- Loss of roadspace
- Vast increase in private hire vehicles (PHVs)
- Vats increase in delivery vans
Perhaps we have gone too far in reducing road space in central London, perhaps there is too little for essential traffic needs? Capping the number of PHVs would not be popular and in any event can't be done without changing the law The rise of the internet and so forth means there will be an inevitable increase in deliveries. Some of it can be mitigated by clever delivery, night time delivery and so forth which TfL are trying to do. I suspect however there will nevertheless still be more deliveries that need to be catered for and that means road space for them.
Outer London is a different kettle of fish, and the big problem here is that much of the existing public transport is designed to get people into and out of central London, and so many car journeys are not easy to replicate in outer London. Main journey times would increase significantly and not be attractive. It will cost a lot of money to grasp this nettle and provide a public transport system that gives people a good alternative.
These things are currently in the 'too difficult to do box', and until someone brave picks these things up and has the budget to do so there is no hope of reducing traffic in advance, and even then you need some form of stick as well as the carrot of suitable alternative public transport.
|
|
