Forum Topic

Richard Carter · 12/16/2020 1:56:00 PM

new.PutneySW15.com Communtity Forum Topic posting

Richmond Conservatives plumb new depths of dishonest campaigning

They are running an amazingly dishonest petition against the cycle lane in Kew Road. See their latest leaflet: POLLUTION, JAMS, DELAYS, it yells, when there are no jams or delays and the usual false concern over pollution being wheeled out: if they really were so concerned about it, wouldn't they be campaigning to reduce the cause of it: excessive car use? And likewise with the concern about safety for ALL road users. And SAVE KEW ROAD? What they actually mean is save the parking where the cycle lane now is, which is why there is no congestion since the cycle lane simply occupies the space that was previously used for parking. But the worst thing is the emotional appeal to SAVE KEW GARDENS: who wouldn't support such a slogan — except that there is absolutely no threat to Kew Gardens, this is quite dreadful scaremongering.

Richard Carter ● 1959d33 Comments

Isn't there an argument though that they dont have to make a profit? It's a subsidised mode of self-powered public transport?

Matt Palmer ● 1955d

"I've never ridden a Santander bike but there's no doubt they've been a big success."Richard it is hard to say - I can't even find the cost of the scheme.I can see the cost on last years (Quarter 3 2019/20) which doesn't look great.A operating loss of 2.40 per hire. *Operating costs exclude depreciation and the management fee, which are also charged to the licence fee.So probably even more!

Ed Robinson ● 1956d

Boris bikes have always had to be returned to a docking station, if you don't then there a pretty high penalty. I've seen a couple at low tide in Fulham though so some people obv don't mind the fine and send them for a swim.The other ones called 'lime' bikes can be left anywhere however.

Matt Palmer ● 1956d

Craig it was reported in several publications.With TFL funding model being so heavily dependent on fares government lockdown past and future are going to result in lots of cuts. (Not to mention HS bridge costs).A new funding model is needed but the government won't be helpful there. Road charging will give a short term boost but usage will drop off as people go else where or do not use their cars.All the city recovery models rely on cheap efficient public transport so effectively the government will be fighting with itself.Not impossible to see how this could all go very bad for London. Perhaps the minister for london could share his vision?https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mylondon.news/news/zone-1-news/boris-bikes-could-scrapped-part-19450649.amp

Ed Robinson ● 1956d

Not sure what Ed knows, but I'd read that it was one of a number of cost-saving measures being considered (others included scrapping or limiting the Freedom Pass) but that they'd been abandoned. It would be good to have confirmation of this: I've never ridden a Santander bike but there's no doubt they've been a big success.

Richard Carter ● 1956d

Ed - do you have more info on Santander bikes potentially going? As a regular user, this is really disappointing to hear.

Craig Fordham ● 1956d

"All 12 Low Emission Bus Zones have now been completed and this means that all scheduled TfL buses travelling through these zones will need to meet or exceed latest Euro VI emission standards." Putney High Street from Putney Station to Putney Bridge Road is one such zone.Sounds impressive until you realise that the standard came out 7 years ago and Euro VI for buses isn't the same as for cars!Looks like the NOx allowed for a Euro VI bus is 5 times the amount of a Euro VI car.Considering both on most London roads have a top speed of 20mph - it makes you wonder how green those dinosaurs are!

Ed Robinson ● 1956d

Ivonne, as I said to Barbara (excuse me repeating myself: I purposely tagged point 1 with "... appropriate” as I know there will be difference circumstances and changes don't happen overnight. I was trying to set up some points to begin a constrictive discussion to evolve a possible roadmap. Can we agree that if something doesn't change soon we'll all start choking and the effects of global warming? It maybe that short term using public transport is less appropriate because of Covid risks and that can be viewed as a temporary detour on the road map and one hopes that doesn't cause too many delays.Obviously vehicle traffic isn't just private cars which is why I used that terms motorised and vehicles and also used the term traffic without indicating its origin. (At least that's what I intended!) And I included point 5 to indicate that there were service that had to use motorised vehicles of some type.I'm not saying I have the answers either! Just setting some parameters, but they can be modified ...

Michael Ixer ● 1956d

If you look at TFL'S fleet only a very small percentage are electric. They are not very clear or green in general.Santander bikes are no good for going from the station to your home or vice versa so they do not really help. Looks like they are going to go soon anyway. Dockless is the way to go with local cycle shelters.The cycle lane along Kew Gardens is where a fair number of cars and coaches used to park. I forget the time restrictions but it may have been after 10 am mon to sat. That section was always non parking this time of year for cars anyway when the light show was on. I suspect the shop further down used to get passing trade from Kew visitors etc. If you look at the poster Richard shared congestion is mention last.I shall have to take a look at the new lane and try not to buy some of the shop's excellent cakes next time I'm there. Apparently people do travel to visit the Maid of Honour or at least used to!

Ed Robinson ● 1956d

Hello Michael, excuse me for going back, but is (was?) the government not asking people to go back to work and NOT use public transport? Does this not continue today? Of course emissions must be reduced,and however much I annoy Richard (sorry, not pinpointing on purpose but it has been discussed before), you cannot stop motor vehicles coming into London from one day to the next. We all need a plan and a strategy - but very well thought-out! The LTNs were (are in some places) a disaster because they were a kne-jerk reaction.Of course, theories are great but not so much when experience shows the opposite. And, until people understand, or admit, that all traffic in London (the cockpit of the economy) does not start here, any plans are doomed to failure. Why? Motor vehicles in London are not only cars!!! Some, may I add, are electric or very low in emissions (1cc engines). There is a very serious debate to be had, without a doubt. But people must be open minded and understand all circumstances. It is also of interest to point out that we ALL pay taxes for maintenance of roads. If people are not allowed to drive through them, they should automatically become private roads for maintenance and repair purposes.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1956d

OK, Barbara, I thought it was a response to the sub thread I started, not to worry. I'm interested in the Santander bike comment as, although I'm not a user, I thought they always had to be returned to one of the designated stations otherwise there was a penalty as the charges are worked out from time removed and returned to a designated station?

Michael Ixer ● 1956d

Michael I wasn't actually replying to you, I was replying just in general. Also did read somewhere, Boris bikes have to now be taken back to their docking stations, not left willy nilly everywhere. A lot of them are seen around Chiswick over the bridge near the sports grounds just left on grass verges.

Barbara Stevens ● 1956d

Barbara. I purposely tagged point 1 with "... appropriate” as I know there will be difference circumstances and changes don't happen overnight. I was trying to set up some points to begin a constrictive discussion to evolve a possible roadmap. Can we agree that if something doesn't change soon we'll all start choking and the effects of global warming? One point I didn't propose was a probable reduction in commuting and business travel because of more remote working and teleconferencing. Something many (granted, not all) businesses would like to encourage to reduce property and travel costs. Less time spent commuting and travelling may mean people might be able to spend more time cycling, walking or indulging in other leisure activitiesrather than rushing around? (I'll agree that there will still be a need for some face-to-face meetings and working.)

Michael Ixer ● 1956d

Fair comment , Simon. I'd see all those as necessities to "encourage" people to use public transport?

Michael Ixer ● 1956d

I really don't know at the present time, how it's possible to even argue about this subject. Hammersmith Bridge is still closed and depending where you want to go to get to the other side of the bridge, you will either use Kew, Chiswick. Putney or Wandsworth Bridge. As for cycling unless you have all day to get to where you want to go with out cycle speeding, you need a vehicle. I came from Sainsbury's yesterday crossed over the crossing and 2 cyclists shot behind me, at great speed pulled up outside the cafe in Chelverton Rd, with their Deliveroo bags on their back. Whe4n one came out I said you nearly ran me over. What, What I don't understand what you say. With that he went the wrong way down the road at great speed. carry on cyclists your doing a great job. Pr-ts.

Barbara Stevens ● 1956d

""How about a public transport system that is dirt cheap, clean, reliable and safe?"Not with Khan in charge, it's beyond his capabilities.

Sue Hammond ● 1956d

Indeed it is, it's a big part of the eventual solution, when the government can get away from endlessly putting up prices.

Richard Carter ● 1956d

How about a public transport system that is dirt cheap, clean, reliable and safe?

Simon Knight ● 1957d

That's a very useful summary, Michael, and far better than parroting unsupported stories about cycle lanes supposedly causing pollution and - wait for it - that hoary old myth, "road tax." Just to be clear, road tax was abolished (in 1937!) and roads are paid for out of general taxation, so everyone who pays any kind of tax is paying for the roads.There is a vehicle excise tax, but that's related to the pollution caused, and even in the fevered imaginations of the anti-cycling lobby, cyclists don't cause pollution.And as for bringing in Ella Kissi-Debrah in support of her case, as Sue H does, that's quite simply ludicrous. Her mother is genuinely concerned about pollution because it was (as is now recognised) a contributory factor in Ella's death. No false concern there, as opposed to those who bleat hypocritically about pollution whilst not thinking to reduce its source.

Richard Carter ● 1957d

These debates never seem to go anywhere but perhaps we should start from the objectives that pollution has to be reduced to saffeguard health and a speedy reduction in greenhouse gases is needed to stop climate change and the threat to our civilisation? There would seem to be some basic axioms for this:1. There is insufficient space for motorised traffic and parking in London (and other cities and towns) so where feasible use of public transport or car sharing is to be encouraged where cycling or walking is not appropriate.2. We need safer routes for cycling to encourage more people to use that mode of transport.3. The number of polluting petrochermical driven vehicles must be reduced rapid!y to zero.4. Care needs to be tacken to ensure that people who have special transport/mobility requirements are not disadvantaged.5. There are other practicalities that need consideration such as access for emergency teams, deliveries and workers with heavy tools or machinery.Just some starting points? Perhaps build on those to develop a way forward?

Michael Ixer ● 1957d

Don't be obtuse David.

Sue Hammond ● 1957d

I would say this particular lane is the exception rather than the rule Jonathan. In most cases the vehicular lanes are reduced which causes increased congestion that leads to increased pollution. We could go round and round in circles and never see eye to eye on this issue so let's agree to disagree.

Sue Hammond ● 1957d

"If many cyclists are also vehicle drivers they are using the roads in two ways so perhaps they should pay extra for the privilege."Only if they are some sort of trick cyclists and are able to use both vehicles at the same time, surely?

David Ainsworth ● 1957d

But that second lane was not used by through traffic on the roads where these changes have been made, it was used by cars and vans for parking, unloading etc so there is little difference to overall traffic flows. Ken High Street is a case in point.From my observations on a cycle ride to Kew a few months ago Kew Rd was quite congested due to all the parked cars not the then non-existent cycle lane. The parking was legal but it didn't allow two way flow especially when a bus was involved. It's really a matter of sensible planning on the many narrow streets we have in London.An interesting TfL chart (to be seen via https://twitter.com/willnorman/status/1339575509055909888) shows a breakdown by borough of what mode of transport people use to get to the shops. The chart ranks boroughs according to how many as a % walk or cycle. The stats are based on a 3 year average and Wandsworth comes out just slightly better than the average with about 52% walking or cycling to the shops. Just under 30% use their cars and the rest use public transport. Westminster, Lambeth, Ken & Chelsea and Ham & Fulham all have a higher % walking or cycling. It seems to me there needs to be better engagement with shopkeepers who lobby so hard for more parking near their shops and were the ones K&C listened to when deciding to remove their cycle lane. Over 60% of their customers, according to these stats, already walk or cycle to their shops.Basically, the further out you are the more likely you are to use (i.e. need to use) your car, which is logical.There is no satisfactory way of charging cyclists to use the roads. A registration scheme would cost an estimated £4bn to bring in and would be very hard to police. Road pricing, when it comes, will almost definitely be policed by ANPR cameras. And some cars are tax free anyway - because they are non-polluting, just as a bike is. A gas guzzling car pays far more car tax than a hybrid or an efficient petrol engined one.

Jonathan Callaway ● 1957d

Hi Jonathan. It's logical that if you take away the use of one lane and condense the traffic into one remaining lane that action will cause more traffic congestion. Long lines of vehicles crawling along and idling in jams will obviously cause more pollution. Where is your hard evidence that it does not?If many cyclists are also vehicle drivers they are using the roads in two ways so perhaps they should pay extra for the privilege.

Sue Hammond ● 1957d

Sue, it would be interesting to see some hard evidence that cycle lanes cause 'gridlock'. My view is that we are getting gridlock from increased car use thanks to the virus and the understandable desire to avoid public transport. Increased cycle use is driven in part by the same concern. But I am not aware of any conclusive evidence that cycle lanes block traffic. Opinion seems to divide on ideological lines (like much else!) but hard evidence is what we need.We are all concerned about air pollution. I started the Putney Society campaign several years ago and we have had some modest success, mainly in getting cleaner buses in PHS, but car use is at the heart of the problem and especially diesel car use. We have surveyed air quality in and around central Putney several times and it is no coincidence that the major roads are the hotspots. Putney Hill (no bike lanes) is bad. PHS is bad (no bike lanes), LRR is bad (no bike lanes), PBR is bad (no bike lanes) so there is nothing locally to point a finger at.We should all be looking at ways to minimise air pollution. This is happening very slowly - younger people do not rush to buy a car any more, especially not those living in the major cities where good public transport and limited or expensive parking are deterrents. Older people, especially the infirm, will keep using their cars and we will still need delivery vans etc - but even here you may have seen the increased use of cargo bikes which fitter younger folk can be employed to bring a lot of stuff to our door. And some vans are now electric or hybrid. But pollution levels in PHS are as bad now as at the start of the year so there is a lot more still to be done.On the point about car tax somehow conferring greater rights on those with cars than those using their bikes I think you will find that many bike riders are also car users so they also pay that tax. The law allows bikes to use the public highway and that won't change. No cost-effective ways of charging cyclists have yet been invented and I just don't see that happening - just how would that support the fight against air pollution anyway?

Jonathan Callaway ● 1957d

Hi Richard, sorry it's taken me so long to reply to you but I get bored with the forum so often don't bother with itt. It is very useful to have friends keeping an eye on the cycle lanes, you must have quite a network to have so much knowledge of how the lanes are being used, or not. You say this space was formerly "wasted" on car parking. Tell that to the residents who pay road tax, Council Tax and for parking permits, but have lost a very important amenity. Of course this is of no concern to cyclists because they don't have to pay anything to use the roads but are gifted with a disproportionate amount of road space in which to cycle. Unfortunately it still doesn't stop them from cycling on pavements. As for "the usual false concern over pollution being wheeled out" - tell that to Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah's Mother. That poor little girl may be the first to have pollution stated as a contributing factor her death but she won't be the last. Ella was walked to school every day along the heavily polluted streets in Lewisham and her Mother said the traffic fumes often caused Ella to have an asthma attack. Please do not keep dismissing the pollution caused by traffic jams as irrelevant or using it as an excuse for more and more cycle lanes which are a major cause of pollution. I am happy to sign any petition to get rid of these disastrous cycle lanes, here is the link for Roger Metcalfe's Kew petition:https://www.petitiononline.uk/roger_metcalfe_calls_for_cancellation_of_kew_road_experimental_traffic_schemeHere is another petition on Change.org Petition · Sadiq Khan: Stop building cycle lanes In London that cause traffic gridlock.https://www.change.org/p/sadiq-khan-stop-building-cycle-lanes-in-london-that-cause-traffic-gridlock

Sue Hammond ● 1957d

Also on Chiswick Forum W4, there is another stupid Bus Stop in the middle of the Road. You have to cross the cycle lane to get a bus. Absolute madness.

Barbara Stevens ● 1958d

Meant Hartington Rd.

Barbara Stevens ● 1958d

You can't drive down Harlington Road unless you have a permit now. The road goes along to Kew Bridge.

Barbara Stevens ● 1958d

Nice try, Sue, but you're wrong on pretty much every count:- I know there are no traffic jams because friends there keep an eye on it (even if there had been, they wouldn't have been caused by the cycle lane because all it did was replace the space used (wasted) on car parking, so there's been no reduction in road space.- I don't "dismiss concerns about pollution," in fact exactly the opposite: I want to see it reduced, by reducing the source. And as I said, if these people had been so concerned about pollution, they would argue for reduced use of cars, but instead, with rank hypocrisy, they bring in a supposed concern about it.- Local concern? My friends see no evidence of it.- Why does it bother me although it's far, far away (4 miles!)? Because I'm concerned with the way false arguments are used, as here, when car owners are in some way affected.- The cycle lane is NOT underused.But you miss the bigger point, which is that, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the point of the campaign, dishonest arguments are being used. SAVE KEW GARDENS? That really is tosh.

Richard Carter ● 1958d

How do you know there are no traffic jams in Kew Road? Do you actually cycle there daily to verify your statement? Why do you always dismiss concerns about pollution when it is a very real concern for so many people? There must have been a lot of LOCAL concern to elicit a petition, and why it should bother someone so much who lives in Putney, I don't understand. Even if the local residents are more worried about the loss of parking space than they are about the loss of a (probably underused) cycle lane, so what?

Sue Hammond ● 1958d