Re car deaths. Europe-wide studies has shown the ballooning size of cars into giant SUVs, particularly high bonnet ones, are effectively reversing gains in safety for other road users, especially pedestrians and cyclists. Its a massive issue (in the literal and metaphorical sense) that is also causing congestion.
At least one bus route in London is now facing being permanently re-routed because the residential roads it has used for years are now too hard to navigate due to just how much bigger parked cars have become.
I've thought for a long time that the dog that really hasn't barked with regard to easing congestion in central London is the elimination of on-street parking. It's barely a thing in Tokyo and the city looks and functions all the better for its absence. If a megatropolis can manage without it, so can London.
Coming next year courtesy of Waymo, I understand. I have to admit I'm a bit skeptical. Not because they can't handle London streets. I'm just imagining the 'fun' London's urchins will have when they realise they can just step out in front of them and they automatically stop. I can see a new game of dare evolving. Nicking Lime bites will seem so passé. 😊
I disagree, it will be the end of car journeys that have multiple stops or car sharing. Instead of a mum dropping off a child, then nipping to the shops, there will now be two cars, one for the mum and one for the child.
Making it worse? No longer any need to park. Your car can just circle the block until you want picking up. Potential to make congestion much worse as a moving car takes even more space than a parked one.
Sadly because of millions of pounds of marketing spend from car companies, who have worked out through promoting selfishness they can sell cars for more money purely due to flogging ones with a bigger size.
There was in america for years a loophole where pickup trucks and large suvs didn't have to adhere to safety standards as regular cars as they were categorised as a truck. So could be sold cheaper.
If these things can only be achieved by reducing car journeys, why not ban private cars for the able bodied inside the north circular and tell anyone who complains to get on a bus like a normal person.
Looking at those ULEZ protesters, and my god if you checked their hard drives you’d solve every single cold case sex murder since 1979 in an afternoon, you really would. Bunch of freaks.
If they want fewer motorbike accidents, then stop this business of getting L plates and being able to ride mopeds endlessly without any sort of test. I walk, cycle and drive in town and all three are badly affected by moped riders driving on the wrong side of the road, driving at me if I am walking, and forcing themselves between vehicles at dangerous junctions and riding in bike lanes. Don't get started on eBikes on throttles that are basically motorbikes, also dangerous and all over pavements and cycle lanes
As a regular commuting cyclist, I've been emailed about a consultation on the pedestrianisation of Oxford St. The sum total of its content regarding cycling is:
"...we propose that cycling would not be allowed on Oxford Street West. This would include e-bikes and e-scooters. Mobility scooters would of course be permitted access.
However, we recognise the need to provide high-quality alternative routes through the area. We will work closely with Westminster City Council to support the development of these proposals."
That's it. This is at best kicking the can down the road, at worst just means - tough. Try and find somewhere to lock your bike (almost impossible) and hope for the best. It is pathetic for an organisation that claims to support cycling. Anything to do with WCC reminds me of the wonderful DriveNow scheme that had electric cars you could drive for journeys in town. It had to leave the City because the councils could not get joined up on what sort of bays they could park in, and god forbid Mr Khan tells them to get their houses in order. Zip car don't do the same thing - you have to park 95% of them at the same place you picked them up.
Subjectively - I hate the tube as it screams, and the issue with buses is what used to be one journey with 6 buses an hour, is now 2 or 3 changes and each route running far fewer buses. Same journey takes 3 or 4 times as long and is punctuated by long waits at bus stops for the connection. That bothers me far more than the speed of the bus.
Huge fan of London Centric's work, so glad you exist :)
You already pointed out that reducing private car journeys would improve road safety and increase air quality, but it would also likely address the bus journey time issue too. And yet another side effect would be more space to build more/wider bike lanes.
It's notable that this is such an obvious solution, but doing it is a place no current politician wants to go. What needs to change for this to be back on the table? Until then it feels like all anyone can do is tinker at the edges
Great analysis of the TFL report - cycling increases to be welcomed. But I am going to talk about red lights - and I think there's a story about cycle infrastructure investment and a total lack of enforcement of how people on bicycles use it. Case in point is Lambeth Bridge - currently undergoing multi-million £s improvement to create dedicated cycling and pedestrian routes. It replaces what were apparently dangerous junctions on both sides of the bridge. I cycle over it daily and less than 5% of fellow cyclists pay any attention to red traffic lights and breeze through, which rather obviates the investment in safety. I guess my point is that carrots in the form of investment to get people on their bikes is good, but with that there needs to be some stick in the form of enforcement to get people using it correctly and safely.
Broadly, there's loads of evidence that a) when people cycling can 'understand' the cycle lights they face, and aren't queuing for ages, they tend to behave well - TfL put out some stats a few years back showing lights on C3 had well over 90% 'compliance', and b) that most of our cycle routes now are far over capacity and indeed that a lot of the lights don't make sense. For instance, the TV cameras have all been up at the north end of Blackfriars Bridge - the issue being that there are long stretches of red light for cycling while no cars move and all the pedestrians have crossed.
We desperately do need better cycle behaviour - but we don't get it automatically by enforcement - it simply doesn't touch the sides. What we need to do is understand carefully why people cycling are behaving way we do and largely design it out. That probably means fewer lights and more capacity/space.
For Lambeth Bridge, unless construction has gone quicker than I've been aware of, part of the issue is it's all chewed up with construction currently.
The total lack of enforcement for red light jumping by speedy bikes is shocking. The real risk to pedestrians is there for everyone to see, all over London. Long straight roads like Fulham Road with the crossing by CandW hospital are the worst. I suspect that for many safe cyclists the fear of being rammed from behind if they do stop is contributing to this.
I cycle through that Lambeth Bridge junction most days. It's not any safer and it takes longer because the lights stay red for ages with long periods of nobody going anywhere. Once you know the sequence of the lights, there's no value to anyone in waiting.
Yeah if you wait for the green all that happens is you're weaving through narrow gaps between roadworks with some impatient driver snarling away three feet behind you. Speaking as someone who usually stops at red lights and always waits for pedestrians to cross I can't say I really blame people for nipping through that particular junction
Lots do so slowly, and give way to pedestrians, treating red lights more like zebra crossings. I'd actually be in favour of changing the law to allow this. But a small minority completely bomb through, forcing pedestrians to step back and have less time to cross. Harsher penalties for not giving way to pedestrians would be my preference.
I am not getting a sense of what problem you are wanting to invest resources on solving in terms of intensity of danger. one person says it's '95% of cyclists', the next it's 'small minority'
how about we accept that actually it isn't that big a deal and resist the urge to have an expensive moral panic that doesn't actually reduce danger to anyone?
I'm a cyclist who wants to see a lot more people cycling and thinks media panics around dangerous cycling are massively overblown. I do think there's a problem with people cycling inconsiderately at some junctions/crossings with high pedestrian footfall, both in terms of statistical and subjective safety. Targeted patrols and enforcement at those spots with some publicity around that could be very helpful IMO.
What is the problem? How severe is it in terms of sctual danger (statistical evidence to use your terms) to the general public relative to the cost of these enforcement patrols, which could be spent on something else more critical?
Worth noting that when you say 'getting people cycling', it's really mostly men. Everyone is being very coy about the statistics (I suspect because they are not great) but two years ago only 25% of Lime bike users were women, and every time I stand at a bus stop and watch the cyclists go past - certainly the commuters - the proportion seems even lower.
And there is a big question to be asked about the infrastructure here. Are we just building more and more lanes which meet the needs of one group, but not all groups (spoiler alert, I think yes, in part because of doing engagement work with women in London on this).
As a side note, would also be very interested in sex-disaggregated data on the Lime bike injuries; my guess would be that women were disproportionately affected...
Women make up a third or so of cycle journeys in London, so you're absolutely right that women are underrepresented in cycling. But the figures on dockless are AFAIK more an even split than overall. And both the Near Miss Project academic study and numerous other surveys and studies suggest that "building more and more lanes" meets the needs of women. Women are more impacted by a lack of physically protected cycle tracks than men are - men are more willing overall to ride mixed in with higher volumes of motor traffic. Although obviously, at 4.5% mode share for London the reality is 'most people' still of all types are put off cycling by road conditions. We've got a long way to go - but if you want gender equity in cycling, you should be a strong supporter of "more and more lanes" which meet the needs of a far wider range of people than the main alternative of 'go play in traffic'.
I hate to say it, but so often it is the women doing crazy things on their bikes such as getting on the inside of HGVs that are about to turn left. I don't know because of less experience or less instinct for risk.
Here's another thought on the decline of journeys made: the rise of PAYG.... when I first lived in London having a monthly or annual travelcard was a no-brainer - it covered your daily commute and everything else was a bonus. Once you had one, going to that party or meeting that friend didn't cost you anything more. You'd paid for freedom of transport and you used it.
But PAYG with caps doesn't work in the same way, you feel you're spending on every extra trip. The caps are quite high compared to the old travelcard economics and psychologically there isn't the sunk cost feeling there used to be.
So you're less likely to venture out at the weekend or in the evening. The costs aren't sky high but they add up, and it's an extra reason to stay at home, or local.
A lot of this is due to TfL's single fares being frozen for several years, while travelcards (and their equivalent caps) have gone up along with rail fares - some percentage over RPI. It's made it a lot harder to get to those 'free' journeys, but not the fault of the PAYG caps in themselves.
So “Boris Bikes were actually Ken’s idea” is one of those things I hear a lot. But whenever I’ve looked into it, I feel it doesn’t really check out beyond some very early work.
And in terms of the proper segregated cycle lanes, that really was a second term Boris thing. Or at least his advisers while he plotted a return to parliament.
Now if you’re talking about Boris taking credit for cutting the ribbon on a vast number of other Ken-era projects, I’d back you.
My impression and (remote, from Edinburgh) was that the initial planning work started under Ken Livingstone....but I'll ask my cousin(who has worked on cycling for Camden/Islington Councils for decades)...I'll get back to you:)
Also, the "cycle network" the press release is talking about is the 'Cycleway' schemes signed in by TfL, post-Sadiq. For the first time, TfL has a minimum standard for schemes called the Cycle Route Quality Criteria. It has then not signed in as Cycleways a lot of the Boris and before stuff - old LCN, Quietways etc. are being slowly just removed. But stuff like CS2 and CS3 - protected cycle tracks - are being signed in.
Interesting point that maybe it’s smartphones arriving in the 2010s that has reduced journeys. Agree but I also think Uber coming in mid 2010s also must have had an impact. I was in my early 20s when they came in and the low prices, especially when they first started, took cabs in London from something you would only use in an emergency to something you’d use just for the fun of it (when in a group to hop to a party, bar etc)
Uber and delivery drivers are to account for the increase in traffic I’d say! I’ve been taking the same bus routes my whole life (I’ve always lived in the zone 2/3 but hard to reach bits of south London) and the bus was a fairly reliable mode of transport back in the 00s and early 10s - but it steadily got worse and since the pandemic it’s an absolute no go if you have to be anywhere on time. A shame because I love the bus!
I imagine part of why there are fewer journeys is also because during the pandemic people started doing lots more in their local area and because people are spending more time there, more businesses can be viable. I certainly rarely go into central London now partly because of what a hell hole it’s become but also because it’s badly connected. Much more likely to go east where the overground takes us, than having to contend with a 90 minute bus.
I have a car but I would fully support a ban on cars for able bodied people - as long as they introduced some better bus routes in SE London! There are so many parts of SE London that are so badly connected, for example Forest Hill to Deptford, East Dulwich to New Cross - these places are 10-15 minutes in the car but 45-60 minutes on TWO busses!
I simply want greater compliance with the system of cycling/ traffic control that ultimately helps people stay safer. If there were consequences for non-compliance (ie fines) that would persuade more people to at least consider the possibility of stopping at red lights.
I bet you have enough readers to use the app's live map as a sampled dataset, get readers in different areas of London to contribute screenshots at different times of the day and week...you'd be able to get closer to an idea of how many Lime bikes there are in London. It won't be exact but it would be something. You could make a vertical video too asking people to contribute. And er then GDPR the hell out of the responses obviously. But I think it could work!
I think a major reason that people are abandoning London buses is because they are so mightily uncomfortable to travel in. The seats aren’t deep enough, they are hard and too high. The windows, such as they are, squeezed into the infrastructure, usually have decals all over them that you can’t see out of. Granted many people no longer look out of the window on a bus, preferring their own tiny screen, but it must surely not be beyond the wit of man to design a bus with all the beautiful and humane design aspects of the old Routemasters.
Elegant with their slight tapering of height, open interiors with comfortable seats, a conductor in place and a welcoming feeling to the whole experience. Douglas Scott who designed the Routemaster said he did not use one right angle in the whole design. Think of those seat poles, how they curved into the seat top and those large windows with their rounded corners.
Thomas Heatherwick failed in his design to create a bus anything like as beautiful and dignified and pleasurable to experience as an old Routemaster. Why he couldn’t follow that design more exactly just defeats me.
If we want people to get off their phones then make travelling on a bus more interesting and pleasurable, then why doesn’t TFL suggest sights to look out and see on the route. London is full of visual treats which could and should be seen from a bus.
It’s the temperature of the bastards in summer that I can’t stand personally. The tube is stifling but at least it dumps you out at your destination with a quickness. I’d actually prefer the windows on the buses to be shaded like you see in Spain and other hot countries so they aren’t just greenhouses on wheels. In the winter they are often so steamed up that you can’t see out anyway.
Again, the old Routemaster had windows at the front of the top deck with smaller opening windows at the top. In high summer, you would wind them down and a breeze wafted through the top deck. Simple and effective. Nowadays the top deck in summer is a smelly oven with no ventilation, especially at the front of the top deck, and as you say, the whole area steams up in winter. Ventilation from a small opening window… It’s so simple. Heatherwick really missed the details, which is surprising as I’m a big fan of all his other designs.
I was a kid when they ruled the road so that didn’t apply to me although I remember some conductors having to bow their heads and looking relieved when they ended up back in their place by the exit where they had head room! Also I was so much older then, I’m younger than that now
I don't recognise that the Elizabeth Line has led to a reduction in overcrowding on the Central Line. It's just as bad as it always was during core commuting hours, at least eastbound. Not helped by so many Central Line cars being out of service at any one time.
I couldn't disagree more. I get on at Bethnal Green. Pre-pandemic (and Liz line), waiting for a 2nd or 3rd train in morning rush hour was standard. Roughly once a month I'd go back to Mile End just to be sure of getting on a westbound train. Now I get on the first train 9 times out of 10. And I can generally get a seat by Bank – 5 years ago Holborn was the benchmark.
I did that route back in 2013 and honestly…. I don’t really know what I was doing not just getting a bike. The looks on the faces of people as the full train pulled into Bethnal Green at 8.15 to see a full platform!
Haha, it was the worst possible location – maximum time to acquire westbound passengers, but just outside the area where large numbers start to get off. I do cycle most of the time, especially now we've moved office to Clerkenwell. But I still get the Tube often enough to know it is definitely quieter than it used to be – no argument.
Yeah, that'll be a lot of central Hackney trying to get on the Tube network, (coming off buses) apart from a couple of northly borough boundary stations like Manor House , Bethnal Green actually being in Tower Hamlets. While Hackney is better served by Overground, that lack of direct to tube network provision has never been addressed and probably never will.
I agree. Central line rush hour commute is still like being stuffed into a barrel. The Elizabeth line is also pretty crowded especially in the central tunnel.
See Nick Maini substack for great analysis in detail of Hammersmith Bridge and its impact on transport in SW London across the Thames. Restricting car journeys must be the way forward to get buses moving faster. Any mention of delivery driver impact and the growth of cycles for deliveries and tradesman?
Bakerloo extension PLEASE. honestly, i am shocked at how this hasn't been done yet. The underdeveloped areas in Old Kent Road would be massively boosted, new houses will be built, new jobs and traffic will not be as crazy as it is now. I don't understand why they are not fighting for this
Road space is scarce, so who gets it matters. Cyclists have been given more space, and that's good. But a lot of that extra space has come from pedestrians and from buses and that's less good. Pedestrians have simply had space taken from them, for buses it's more subtle - lots more cyclists in bus lanes is one reason why buses have slowed down.
Other than very odd exceptions, it's very clear that TfL doesn't have a high regard for pedestrians and it seems to find its buses something of an embarrassment. Until that changes, nothing much else will.
1. Protected cycle lanes are only available on a tiny proportion of main roads in London - and where they've gone in there has been hardly any bus lane removal. Indeed, you yourself suggest an alternative idea in your own comment that might be more the case now - we have too few cycle lanes and so lots of cyclists (as ridership increases) are using bus lanes.
2. Loads of cyclists in bus lanes is not ideal for buses (and again, that's down to a lack of protected cycle tracks), but what slows buses down more? TfL have studied this extensively - hence the story above. And the biggest correlation to bus speeds is... drumroll please... cars on the road. Motor traffic volumes are the big key issue - not cycling, despite the lurid tabloid headlines and the odd snarky comment from bus operators or Lord Hendy. The reality is most London bus routes are mostly not in bus lanes - they're mixed in with traffic. More traffic = more congestion = slower buses.
3. Similarly, cycle tracks haven't mostly come from pavements. There are some examples of pavement cycle tracks, but most delivered since circa 2012 haven't taken space from pavement so much as added cycle tracks next to existing pavements. In many cases, pavements have ended up wider post-cycle track even.
4. TfL is massively obsessed with buses - but in a very little c conservative way in my view. It has set itself for instance a 'bus priority' target, which it then missed in part because it didn't have the guts to deliver as much bus priority measures as it set itself cos of howling drivers and borough politicians. And its target is way too low to really make a difference. Simultaneously, because of the post-Uxbridge by-election landscape, Sadiq has ruled out pay-per-mile charging - which was the big obvious way to reduce overall motor traffic levels. Without it, TfL seems like a rabbit in headlights - unable to work out how to hit its own targets or get bold on buses while also lashing out to all and sundry about how buses are slowing down. Hence folks like Lord Hendy pick on cyclists as an easy way to lay blame. But again, it's the traffic that's the issue here. The data is absolutely clear on that.
Re car deaths. Europe-wide studies has shown the ballooning size of cars into giant SUVs, particularly high bonnet ones, are effectively reversing gains in safety for other road users, especially pedestrians and cyclists. Its a massive issue (in the literal and metaphorical sense) that is also causing congestion.
At least one bus route in London is now facing being permanently re-routed because the residential roads it has used for years are now too hard to navigate due to just how much bigger parked cars have become.
I've thought for a long time that the dog that really hasn't barked with regard to easing congestion in central London is the elimination of on-street parking. It's barely a thing in Tokyo and the city looks and functions all the better for its absence. If a megatropolis can manage without it, so can London.
Driverless cars could be key to this.
Coming next year courtesy of Waymo, I understand. I have to admit I'm a bit skeptical. Not because they can't handle London streets. I'm just imagining the 'fun' London's urchins will have when they realise they can just step out in front of them and they automatically stop. I can see a new game of dare evolving. Nicking Lime bites will seem so passé. 😊
Why? They still have to *be* somewhere 24/7. When not in motion, where?
Walthamstow
Done ✅
I disagree, it will be the end of car journeys that have multiple stops or car sharing. Instead of a mum dropping off a child, then nipping to the shops, there will now be two cars, one for the mum and one for the child.
Making it worse? No longer any need to park. Your car can just circle the block until you want picking up. Potential to make congestion much worse as a moving car takes even more space than a parked one.
I think if the growth of the proportion of people buying large SUV keeps increasing that will be inevitable.
Why are those giant SUVs suddenly everywhere?
Sadly because of millions of pounds of marketing spend from car companies, who have worked out through promoting selfishness they can sell cars for more money purely due to flogging ones with a bigger size.
They are a scourge on the city, especially the vile Chelsea truck 🛻
Aren't there some perverse tax incentives at play too?
There was in america for years a loophole where pickup trucks and large suvs didn't have to adhere to safety standards as regular cars as they were categorised as a truck. So could be sold cheaper.
Also because classic big non SUV cars are way harder to find
Really hard to buy a saloon nowadays unless v pricey make eg Lexus/Merc
Which bus route are you referring to? I'd like to submit a question to the Mayor/ TfL about it.
If these things can only be achieved by reducing car journeys, why not ban private cars for the able bodied inside the north circular and tell anyone who complains to get on a bus like a normal person.
Looking at those ULEZ protesters, and my god if you checked their hard drives you’d solve every single cold case sex murder since 1979 in an afternoon, you really would. Bunch of freaks.
I think you've got an eccentric idea of what a 'normal person' is
Most people in London use buses. Most (at least in inner London) don’t use cars
If they want fewer motorbike accidents, then stop this business of getting L plates and being able to ride mopeds endlessly without any sort of test. I walk, cycle and drive in town and all three are badly affected by moped riders driving on the wrong side of the road, driving at me if I am walking, and forcing themselves between vehicles at dangerous junctions and riding in bike lanes. Don't get started on eBikes on throttles that are basically motorbikes, also dangerous and all over pavements and cycle lanes
As a regular commuting cyclist, I've been emailed about a consultation on the pedestrianisation of Oxford St. The sum total of its content regarding cycling is:
"...we propose that cycling would not be allowed on Oxford Street West. This would include e-bikes and e-scooters. Mobility scooters would of course be permitted access.
However, we recognise the need to provide high-quality alternative routes through the area. We will work closely with Westminster City Council to support the development of these proposals."
That's it. This is at best kicking the can down the road, at worst just means - tough. Try and find somewhere to lock your bike (almost impossible) and hope for the best. It is pathetic for an organisation that claims to support cycling. Anything to do with WCC reminds me of the wonderful DriveNow scheme that had electric cars you could drive for journeys in town. It had to leave the City because the councils could not get joined up on what sort of bays they could park in, and god forbid Mr Khan tells them to get their houses in order. Zip car don't do the same thing - you have to park 95% of them at the same place you picked them up.
Subjectively - I hate the tube as it screams, and the issue with buses is what used to be one journey with 6 buses an hour, is now 2 or 3 changes and each route running far fewer buses. Same journey takes 3 or 4 times as long and is punctuated by long waits at bus stops for the connection. That bothers me far more than the speed of the bus.
Huge fan of London Centric's work, so glad you exist :)
You already pointed out that reducing private car journeys would improve road safety and increase air quality, but it would also likely address the bus journey time issue too. And yet another side effect would be more space to build more/wider bike lanes.
It's notable that this is such an obvious solution, but doing it is a place no current politician wants to go. What needs to change for this to be back on the table? Until then it feels like all anyone can do is tinker at the edges
Great analysis of the TFL report - cycling increases to be welcomed. But I am going to talk about red lights - and I think there's a story about cycle infrastructure investment and a total lack of enforcement of how people on bicycles use it. Case in point is Lambeth Bridge - currently undergoing multi-million £s improvement to create dedicated cycling and pedestrian routes. It replaces what were apparently dangerous junctions on both sides of the bridge. I cycle over it daily and less than 5% of fellow cyclists pay any attention to red traffic lights and breeze through, which rather obviates the investment in safety. I guess my point is that carrots in the form of investment to get people on their bikes is good, but with that there needs to be some stick in the form of enforcement to get people using it correctly and safely.
Broadly, there's loads of evidence that a) when people cycling can 'understand' the cycle lights they face, and aren't queuing for ages, they tend to behave well - TfL put out some stats a few years back showing lights on C3 had well over 90% 'compliance', and b) that most of our cycle routes now are far over capacity and indeed that a lot of the lights don't make sense. For instance, the TV cameras have all been up at the north end of Blackfriars Bridge - the issue being that there are long stretches of red light for cycling while no cars move and all the pedestrians have crossed.
We desperately do need better cycle behaviour - but we don't get it automatically by enforcement - it simply doesn't touch the sides. What we need to do is understand carefully why people cycling are behaving way we do and largely design it out. That probably means fewer lights and more capacity/space.
For Lambeth Bridge, unless construction has gone quicker than I've been aware of, part of the issue is it's all chewed up with construction currently.
The total lack of enforcement for red light jumping by speedy bikes is shocking. The real risk to pedestrians is there for everyone to see, all over London. Long straight roads like Fulham Road with the crossing by CandW hospital are the worst. I suspect that for many safe cyclists the fear of being rammed from behind if they do stop is contributing to this.
Lime need to be mandated to charge by distance not time. Drivers (they’re not cyclists!) are incentivised to dangerous behaviour.
How would that work? What would stop someone just keeping a bike all day and not going anywhere?
I cycle through that Lambeth Bridge junction most days. It's not any safer and it takes longer because the lights stay red for ages with long periods of nobody going anywhere. Once you know the sequence of the lights, there's no value to anyone in waiting.
Yeah if you wait for the green all that happens is you're weaving through narrow gaps between roadworks with some impatient driver snarling away three feet behind you. Speaking as someone who usually stops at red lights and always waits for pedestrians to cross I can't say I really blame people for nipping through that particular junction
what is the problem you are wanting enforcement to solve, given you say '95%' of cyclists are ignoring the light?
Lots do so slowly, and give way to pedestrians, treating red lights more like zebra crossings. I'd actually be in favour of changing the law to allow this. But a small minority completely bomb through, forcing pedestrians to step back and have less time to cross. Harsher penalties for not giving way to pedestrians would be my preference.
I am not getting a sense of what problem you are wanting to invest resources on solving in terms of intensity of danger. one person says it's '95% of cyclists', the next it's 'small minority'
how about we accept that actually it isn't that big a deal and resist the urge to have an expensive moral panic that doesn't actually reduce danger to anyone?
I'm a cyclist who wants to see a lot more people cycling and thinks media panics around dangerous cycling are massively overblown. I do think there's a problem with people cycling inconsiderately at some junctions/crossings with high pedestrian footfall, both in terms of statistical and subjective safety. Targeted patrols and enforcement at those spots with some publicity around that could be very helpful IMO.
What is the problem? How severe is it in terms of sctual danger (statistical evidence to use your terms) to the general public relative to the cost of these enforcement patrols, which could be spent on something else more critical?
Worth noting that when you say 'getting people cycling', it's really mostly men. Everyone is being very coy about the statistics (I suspect because they are not great) but two years ago only 25% of Lime bike users were women, and every time I stand at a bus stop and watch the cyclists go past - certainly the commuters - the proportion seems even lower.
And there is a big question to be asked about the infrastructure here. Are we just building more and more lanes which meet the needs of one group, but not all groups (spoiler alert, I think yes, in part because of doing engagement work with women in London on this).
As a side note, would also be very interested in sex-disaggregated data on the Lime bike injuries; my guess would be that women were disproportionately affected...
Also I note that the word woman appears exactly once in the TfL report...
Women make up a third or so of cycle journeys in London, so you're absolutely right that women are underrepresented in cycling. But the figures on dockless are AFAIK more an even split than overall. And both the Near Miss Project academic study and numerous other surveys and studies suggest that "building more and more lanes" meets the needs of women. Women are more impacted by a lack of physically protected cycle tracks than men are - men are more willing overall to ride mixed in with higher volumes of motor traffic. Although obviously, at 4.5% mode share for London the reality is 'most people' still of all types are put off cycling by road conditions. We've got a long way to go - but if you want gender equity in cycling, you should be a strong supporter of "more and more lanes" which meet the needs of a far wider range of people than the main alternative of 'go play in traffic'.
I hate to say it, but so often it is the women doing crazy things on their bikes such as getting on the inside of HGVs that are about to turn left. I don't know because of less experience or less instinct for risk.
Here's another thought on the decline of journeys made: the rise of PAYG.... when I first lived in London having a monthly or annual travelcard was a no-brainer - it covered your daily commute and everything else was a bonus. Once you had one, going to that party or meeting that friend didn't cost you anything more. You'd paid for freedom of transport and you used it.
But PAYG with caps doesn't work in the same way, you feel you're spending on every extra trip. The caps are quite high compared to the old travelcard economics and psychologically there isn't the sunk cost feeling there used to be.
So you're less likely to venture out at the weekend or in the evening. The costs aren't sky high but they add up, and it's an extra reason to stay at home, or local.
A lot of this is due to TfL's single fares being frozen for several years, while travelcards (and their equivalent caps) have gone up along with rail fares - some percentage over RPI. It's made it a lot harder to get to those 'free' journeys, but not the fault of the PAYG caps in themselves.
This has been top of mind for me too. Hard agree.
One small gripe: much of the early cycle network planning inc. the "Boris bike" scheme was actually developed under Ken Livingstone.
So “Boris Bikes were actually Ken’s idea” is one of those things I hear a lot. But whenever I’ve looked into it, I feel it doesn’t really check out beyond some very early work.
And in terms of the proper segregated cycle lanes, that really was a second term Boris thing. Or at least his advisers while he plotted a return to parliament.
Now if you’re talking about Boris taking credit for cutting the ribbon on a vast number of other Ken-era projects, I’d back you.
Boris Johnson scheming and going on jollies while taking credit for other people’s hard work you say? Surely unprecedented.
My impression and (remote, from Edinburgh) was that the initial planning work started under Ken Livingstone....but I'll ask my cousin(who has worked on cycling for Camden/Islington Councils for decades)...I'll get back to you:)
Haha, I appreciate the reply Jim. And, yes, I'm probably buttering it with some wishful thinking. I bow to your more analytical research chops.
Also, the "cycle network" the press release is talking about is the 'Cycleway' schemes signed in by TfL, post-Sadiq. For the first time, TfL has a minimum standard for schemes called the Cycle Route Quality Criteria. It has then not signed in as Cycleways a lot of the Boris and before stuff - old LCN, Quietways etc. are being slowly just removed. But stuff like CS2 and CS3 - protected cycle tracks - are being signed in.
Interesting point that maybe it’s smartphones arriving in the 2010s that has reduced journeys. Agree but I also think Uber coming in mid 2010s also must have had an impact. I was in my early 20s when they came in and the low prices, especially when they first started, took cabs in London from something you would only use in an emergency to something you’d use just for the fun of it (when in a group to hop to a party, bar etc)
Uber and delivery drivers are to account for the increase in traffic I’d say! I’ve been taking the same bus routes my whole life (I’ve always lived in the zone 2/3 but hard to reach bits of south London) and the bus was a fairly reliable mode of transport back in the 00s and early 10s - but it steadily got worse and since the pandemic it’s an absolute no go if you have to be anywhere on time. A shame because I love the bus!
I imagine part of why there are fewer journeys is also because during the pandemic people started doing lots more in their local area and because people are spending more time there, more businesses can be viable. I certainly rarely go into central London now partly because of what a hell hole it’s become but also because it’s badly connected. Much more likely to go east where the overground takes us, than having to contend with a 90 minute bus.
I have a car but I would fully support a ban on cars for able bodied people - as long as they introduced some better bus routes in SE London! There are so many parts of SE London that are so badly connected, for example Forest Hill to Deptford, East Dulwich to New Cross - these places are 10-15 minutes in the car but 45-60 minutes on TWO busses!
What you need is a nice motorway between East Dulwich and New Cross! https://www.londoncentric.media/p/london-ringways-urban-motorways-unbuilt-roads-first-map
I simply want greater compliance with the system of cycling/ traffic control that ultimately helps people stay safer. If there were consequences for non-compliance (ie fines) that would persuade more people to at least consider the possibility of stopping at red lights.
I bet you have enough readers to use the app's live map as a sampled dataset, get readers in different areas of London to contribute screenshots at different times of the day and week...you'd be able to get closer to an idea of how many Lime bikes there are in London. It won't be exact but it would be something. You could make a vertical video too asking people to contribute. And er then GDPR the hell out of the responses obviously. But I think it could work!
I think a major reason that people are abandoning London buses is because they are so mightily uncomfortable to travel in. The seats aren’t deep enough, they are hard and too high. The windows, such as they are, squeezed into the infrastructure, usually have decals all over them that you can’t see out of. Granted many people no longer look out of the window on a bus, preferring their own tiny screen, but it must surely not be beyond the wit of man to design a bus with all the beautiful and humane design aspects of the old Routemasters.
Elegant with their slight tapering of height, open interiors with comfortable seats, a conductor in place and a welcoming feeling to the whole experience. Douglas Scott who designed the Routemaster said he did not use one right angle in the whole design. Think of those seat poles, how they curved into the seat top and those large windows with their rounded corners.
Thomas Heatherwick failed in his design to create a bus anything like as beautiful and dignified and pleasurable to experience as an old Routemaster. Why he couldn’t follow that design more exactly just defeats me.
If we want people to get off their phones then make travelling on a bus more interesting and pleasurable, then why doesn’t TFL suggest sights to look out and see on the route. London is full of visual treats which could and should be seen from a bus.
It’s the temperature of the bastards in summer that I can’t stand personally. The tube is stifling but at least it dumps you out at your destination with a quickness. I’d actually prefer the windows on the buses to be shaded like you see in Spain and other hot countries so they aren’t just greenhouses on wheels. In the winter they are often so steamed up that you can’t see out anyway.
Again, the old Routemaster had windows at the front of the top deck with smaller opening windows at the top. In high summer, you would wind them down and a breeze wafted through the top deck. Simple and effective. Nowadays the top deck in summer is a smelly oven with no ventilation, especially at the front of the top deck, and as you say, the whole area steams up in winter. Ventilation from a small opening window… It’s so simple. Heatherwick really missed the details, which is surprising as I’m a big fan of all his other designs.
The old routemasters were not a pleasant experience if you were tall. Low ceilings. No legroom.
My memory of them was anything but dignified
I was a kid when they ruled the road so that didn’t apply to me although I remember some conductors having to bow their heads and looking relieved when they ended up back in their place by the exit where they had head room! Also I was so much older then, I’m younger than that now
I don't recognise that the Elizabeth Line has led to a reduction in overcrowding on the Central Line. It's just as bad as it always was during core commuting hours, at least eastbound. Not helped by so many Central Line cars being out of service at any one time.
I couldn't disagree more. I get on at Bethnal Green. Pre-pandemic (and Liz line), waiting for a 2nd or 3rd train in morning rush hour was standard. Roughly once a month I'd go back to Mile End just to be sure of getting on a westbound train. Now I get on the first train 9 times out of 10. And I can generally get a seat by Bank – 5 years ago Holborn was the benchmark.
I did that route back in 2013 and honestly…. I don’t really know what I was doing not just getting a bike. The looks on the faces of people as the full train pulled into Bethnal Green at 8.15 to see a full platform!
Haha, it was the worst possible location – maximum time to acquire westbound passengers, but just outside the area where large numbers start to get off. I do cycle most of the time, especially now we've moved office to Clerkenwell. But I still get the Tube often enough to know it is definitely quieter than it used to be – no argument.
Yeah, that'll be a lot of central Hackney trying to get on the Tube network, (coming off buses) apart from a couple of northly borough boundary stations like Manor House , Bethnal Green actually being in Tower Hamlets. While Hackney is better served by Overground, that lack of direct to tube network provision has never been addressed and probably never will.
The non reappearance of the trains taken away to be refurbished is past a joke. I have seen precisely one of the refurbished trains in the wild - one!
I agree. Central line rush hour commute is still like being stuffed into a barrel. The Elizabeth line is also pretty crowded especially in the central tunnel.
See Nick Maini substack for great analysis in detail of Hammersmith Bridge and its impact on transport in SW London across the Thames. Restricting car journeys must be the way forward to get buses moving faster. Any mention of delivery driver impact and the growth of cycles for deliveries and tradesman?
Bakerloo extension PLEASE. honestly, i am shocked at how this hasn't been done yet. The underdeveloped areas in Old Kent Road would be massively boosted, new houses will be built, new jobs and traffic will not be as crazy as it is now. I don't understand why they are not fighting for this
Road space is scarce, so who gets it matters. Cyclists have been given more space, and that's good. But a lot of that extra space has come from pedestrians and from buses and that's less good. Pedestrians have simply had space taken from them, for buses it's more subtle - lots more cyclists in bus lanes is one reason why buses have slowed down.
Other than very odd exceptions, it's very clear that TfL doesn't have a high regard for pedestrians and it seems to find its buses something of an embarrassment. Until that changes, nothing much else will.
Except none of that is really accurate. Sorry.
1. Protected cycle lanes are only available on a tiny proportion of main roads in London - and where they've gone in there has been hardly any bus lane removal. Indeed, you yourself suggest an alternative idea in your own comment that might be more the case now - we have too few cycle lanes and so lots of cyclists (as ridership increases) are using bus lanes.
2. Loads of cyclists in bus lanes is not ideal for buses (and again, that's down to a lack of protected cycle tracks), but what slows buses down more? TfL have studied this extensively - hence the story above. And the biggest correlation to bus speeds is... drumroll please... cars on the road. Motor traffic volumes are the big key issue - not cycling, despite the lurid tabloid headlines and the odd snarky comment from bus operators or Lord Hendy. The reality is most London bus routes are mostly not in bus lanes - they're mixed in with traffic. More traffic = more congestion = slower buses.
3. Similarly, cycle tracks haven't mostly come from pavements. There are some examples of pavement cycle tracks, but most delivered since circa 2012 haven't taken space from pavement so much as added cycle tracks next to existing pavements. In many cases, pavements have ended up wider post-cycle track even.
4. TfL is massively obsessed with buses - but in a very little c conservative way in my view. It has set itself for instance a 'bus priority' target, which it then missed in part because it didn't have the guts to deliver as much bus priority measures as it set itself cos of howling drivers and borough politicians. And its target is way too low to really make a difference. Simultaneously, because of the post-Uxbridge by-election landscape, Sadiq has ruled out pay-per-mile charging - which was the big obvious way to reduce overall motor traffic levels. Without it, TfL seems like a rabbit in headlights - unable to work out how to hit its own targets or get bold on buses while also lashing out to all and sundry about how buses are slowing down. Hence folks like Lord Hendy pick on cyclists as an easy way to lay blame. But again, it's the traffic that's the issue here. The data is absolutely clear on that.