I’ll try to answer Ivonne and Lucille in one post, so I’m sorry if it’s longer than usual.Yvonne: “Access to the park can be on foot, by bicycle or by car.” Agreed - but the discussion is really about *access within the park*, not how you get there. Is there evidence that people driving through the park, are rat runners? The evidence from the comprehensive Peter Brett Associates study is pretty clear: “During the week approximately 40% of all trips are generated from within a few miles radius of the park [which means, obviously, that nearly two-thirds are from much further afield] … the dominant journey purpose on weekdays is home to work and vice versa.” Furthermore, in a series of interviews with drivers they were asked why and how often they used the park: “The majority of responses fall into the categories of ‘shorter journey’ and ‘avoiding congestion.’ This reinforces commonly held views as to why the park is used instead of the adjacent road network. The majority of those interviewed, also stated that they use the internal road system [of the park] either once or twice a day, again supporting the use of the park as a commuter route for at least one of the peak hours if not both.” As to cyclists, some are clearly using the park as a through route, but is that a problem? What is a problem though, is the minority who use it as a Tour de France adjunct, and I don’t support that.Ivonne and Lucille: There is a cyclists’ lobby, but to suggest it’s as vociferous as the car lobby is, well, surprising - and, if you look at the Daily Mail and similar organs (as well as the contributions of some on this site!), you soon see that there is a very vociferous anti-cycling lobby.Lucille: “The Park is supposed to be for everyone and we need to get there as easily as possible.” Indeed it is, but getting there - as you point out - by public transport just isn't practical, and in the absence of a reasonable alternative, most people will have to travel there by car. But this is really about access to the park once you’re in it (see above), so we have no disagreement there.And, finally, I don’t see how an extra cycle lane for cyclists would work: wouldn’t it take out too much of the park once you allowed for space either side, and wouldn’t it still leave the problem for pedestrians crossing it? The Tamsin Trail was originally funded from a bequest that specified a cycle route only, but was made shared access; it’s great for slower cyclists (like me) and families, but the faster ones tend not to use it for obvious reasons.
Richard Carter ● 2025d