Forum Topic

Cycle lanes blamed for London’s status as world’s most congested city

UK capital climbs 15 places in just a year, bucking the trend of other major cities affected by the pandemic:https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/07/cycle-lanes-blamed-londons-status-worlds-congested-city/

Leslie Wilson ● 1752d80 Comments

Logical.

John Davies ● 1752d

Any moron would have foreseen that. (except our Mayor and TfL of course)

Steve Taylor ● 1752d

Inrix appeared to have overlooked that the number of cars is also at prepandemic levels, so hardly surprising congestion is too. Other cities have obviously been more successful at discouraging car use, with Paris closing down a large segment of the centre to traffic. It’s possible London has been too timid in comparison.

Tom Pike ● 1752d

Just downloaded the full report from INRIX: there is no mention in it of cycleways being the reason for the delays on London, so I'm not sure why their spokesperson mentioned it. Possibly it would be to get INRIX publicity, in which case it worked!

Tom Pike ● 1752d

TfL have managed to achieve something that they intended to do then

Richard Potts ● 1752d

I wonder why this part of the Inrix report didn't make it into the media churn?"Drivers in London, Cambridge and Bristol lost the most time to traffic congestion (148, 75 and 66 hours respectively), despite seeing large reductions compared with 2019 (down 53%, 42% and 64% respectively). Exeter saw the largest increase in congestion with delays increasing by 27% from 2019."So time lost by drivers to traffic congestion in London in 2021 is down by 53% since 2019 despite traffic being at pre-pandemic levels. And there are no cycle lanes on four of Inrix's top 5 congestion hotspots apart. And no mention of cycle lanes in the report.Looks like a rogue media relations spokesperson has misrepresented the report itself. I wonder if Inrix will promote or demote him for that .....No surprise as to who is taking the bait on social media. Not just on this forum of course.

Paul Campbell ● 1752d

The article is behind a paywall so I can't read it, but are they really saying London is more congested than Lagos ?

Richard Greenhough ● 1752d

Paul, I just got an email from Peter Lees at INRIX saying that the newspaper headlines did not accurately represent their report. The prime reason they gave for the increase in congestion was the economic rebound of London.

Tom Pike ● 1752d

Steve Taylor explained" Any moron would have foreseen that. (except our Mayor and TfL of course)"While others would have foreseen that people such as yourself would immediately blame the Mayor and Tfl for policies directly resulting from inadequatefunding of transport infrastructure by Central Goverment. Basically Boris & Co would far rather spend peanuts on cycle lanes than actually spend real money tackling the problem and are more than happy to allow others to shoulder the blame for the fairly predicatable* shambles that resulted  michael adams*Predictable other than by deluded zealots at least; who are apprently more than happy to lend credenceto a Conservative Goverment's penny pinching cop-out.

Michael Adams ● 1752d

Thanks Tom. I expect Peter Lees is writing a lot of emails like that today. Yet another lesson in how much trust can be put into MSM's clickbait reporting on any matter with nuance.

Paul Campbell ● 1752d

"...actually spend real money tackling the problem..."So, Michael, if you had a magic money tree available, how would you go about tackling the problem ?

Richard Greenhough ● 1752d

I think there is a particular issue with some journalists reporting on this issue. A previous example was reporting anecdotal evidence that LTNs were slowing down emergency response times. Once the actual response times were published, LTNs were seen to have similar or faster response times.There's good reason to be especially sceptical of such stories, which is why I wasn't surprised to hear from INRIX that their report had been misrepresented.

Tom Pike ● 1752d

For anyone who might care, I just got an email from my mother. She suffers from dementia. Poor thing.She said anyone with a functioning brain cell predicted traffic would increase post COVID. Tom et al called those folks idiots. And here we see Tom back pedalling to save Inrix. Do I have that right?

David Lesniak ● 1752d

“ Other cities have obviously been more successful at discouraging car use”Yep, other cities don’t have 180 days of rain a year!

Steve Taylor ● 1752d

I love that Paul and Tom are always in touch with people in the know, in power etc etc.  That's why we're in this mess  because the cycle lobby are small in number but in all the right places. Doesn't make them right, just powerful. Power in the wrong hands is destructive as can be seen.

Maggie Dodge ● 1752d

Of course the traffic was going to increase post covid - who claimed otherwise? There's nothing in the INRIX report on cycle lanes being the cause of the increased congestion, though. They're not even mentioned.It's the journalists who misrepresented their report who should be backpedalling at this point, though they have managed to highlight the more gullible who believe anything that confirms their prejudices.

Tom Pike ● 1752d

No , I simply emailed the public address for INRIX and got a response. Anyone who wanted to confirm the basis for the claims that the cycle lanes were responsible for London's congestion could have done the same.I agree that while you happy to admit you prefer to go with anecdote rather than  any data you are unlikely to get much leverage. But that is your choice and hardly a basis to criticise those who might would prefer evidence-based decision making.

Tom Pike ● 1752d

When I got involved in this debate a few years ago I assumed that opponents of cycle lanes and safer streets would, over time, claw back the advantage of asymmetric information conferred by reading publically available reports and data. But no they've been happy to cede the advantage and if anything the gap has grown.

Paul Campbell ● 1752d

TomPeter Lees was directly quoted by the BBC.  See the attached https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-59559863Inrix operations director Peter Lees said the installation of cycle lanes had a "negative impact on congestion". He said: "Use of roads is all about supply and demand.  If the demand goes up but the road space is being shared with other forms of transport, there's less tarmac effectively for the cars to be on, which then has an impact on the speeds on the road and therefore congestion."Sounds like someone is telling fibs about what Peter said. If it is the BBC, I’m sure Peter would have a good liable case. But if not?

Kieran Fox ● 1752d

It's the same pattern that was seen with climate denial, and Maggie is not alone in belonging to both camps. In fact it's not coincidental their support erodes to a rump who are dismissive of any evidence that might clash with their beliefs, and have instead resorted to conspiracy theories to explain why they are being ignored.

Tom Pike ● 1752d

Peter Lees from INRIX wrote to me (and very possibly others):"In all cases, the speedy economic rebound was presented as the single biggest cause of congestion in London, whilst conversely, cities in other parts of the world have been much slower to return to near-normal commuting, resulting in them being listed lower in the rankings."There is also literally no mention of the London cycle lanes in the INRIX report - I requested a copy to check.It looks very much like he made a speculative comment to get attention to the report. Peter added:"One journalist admitted that the cycle lane comment would “get more readers”, hence some of the headlines today, not accurately representing what we have said."

Tom Pike ● 1752d

“It looks very much like he made a speculative comment to get attention to the report. “Clever him. He knows that the majority of people are furious at the increased traffic jams caused by the largely  unused cycle lanes. The economic upturn after Covid makes boring reading to the majority of Brits. Let’s not forget that this is a country which voted for Brexit so the complexities of economics is not for them. Getting stuck in gridlock for no good reason is important to them though.

Steve Taylor ● 1752d

TomAh, so he is backtracking on his comment.  But it would be difficult to retract it if he had said it to a journalist on record and they had not misquoted him.  It's almost as if he is saying to each interested group what they want to hear?I guess the general principle in what he said is correct though?  If traffic returns to pre-pandemic levels but the road system has been segregated, would congestion increase?

Kieran Fox ● 1752d

"He knows that the majority of people are furious at the increased traffic jams caused by the largely  unused cycle lanes."A sweeping statement that is unlikely to have any evidence to support it. Sensible people wanting to get about in London make use of the rail/tube network and have no need to get furious about traffic jams, though no doubt there are a few dullards who do so.

Richard Greenhough ● 1752d

Richard Greenhough asked"So, Michael, if you had a magic money tree available,"Which "magic money tree" are you referring to Richard ?The "magic millions of pounds" Boris's mates havesipohoned off, offshore from excessive profits fromcovid contracts agreed without proper scrutiny ?  Or the "magic tens of millions of pounds" Jacob Rees Mogg is reported have trousered as a result of Brexit ?Funny old world isn't it Richard ? When the Tories areall filling their boots and squirreling away billionsof pounds off-shore, that's all perfectly o.k.But when the Mayor of London needs a bit more moneyjust to keep basic TfL services running quote:" Sadiq Khan claims bus services could be cut by a fifth and Tube services by almost 10% without government money.  "Unless the government provides the long-term funding needed to maintain our public transport network, there will be no choice but to make significant cuts to services just as demand is growing again."https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-59328131unquote:according to you, all of a sudden we require a "magic money tree"michael adams

Michael Adams ● 1752d

Yes, it was clickbait!The congestion according to INRIX is a little below prepandemic levels, while the traffic counts have returned, so the basis for invoking the principle wasn't actually there in the first place.I also doubt an economic recovery could be led simply through increased congestion!

Tom Pike ● 1752d

This thread reminds me of Goldie Lookin Chain's top 3 hit from 2004 "Guns don't kill people rappers do, I seen it in a documentary on BBC2.I think congestion is perception.Yes there is some between here and KHS with all the roadworks going on including the narrowing of the road at the Olympia for the redevelopment.Traffic is lighter in the mornings compared to pre-covid on Kensington High Street, Road and Gore.I use CS3 in Hyde Park running along South Carriage Drive, which is partly close to car, so I can't comment in the on the stretch from Exhibition Road to Hyde Park Corner.However I see very few cars on Constitution Hill and the Mall, but some congestion at Admiralty Arch due the new Hotel works.Trafalgar Square, the Strand, Fleet Street no traffic really.Ludgate Hill and passed St. Paul can feel like the Weekend on Mondays and Fridays, as I guess many are WFH. The other days it's not that busy either.At this point, the City now feels deserted. No really any point in having traffic lights, as there is nothing to regulate.A temporary cycle lane was made during Covid in King Street. The one running from Cheapside towards the Guildhall. Making it one way only for cars. The cycle lane was taken out in September, but re-instated last week. Don't Believe The Hype (Public Enemy 1988)

Hans Lund-Sorensen ● 1752d

"It looks very much like he made a speculative comment to get attention to the report. Peter added" One has to blooming laugh in these car/bike poker war's

Julian Pavey ● 1752d

That was a true politician's answer, completely avoiding the question with a bunch of non-sequiturs. I can only assume that you have no idea how to tackle the problem, preferring to make snide remarks.

Richard Greenhough ● 1752d

None of the top 5 congestion spots in the INRIX report were inside the inner ring road, which for your commute would start just after Olympia. It was indeed strange to suggest that cycle lanes which are concentrated in the area which is least congested are responsible for London's congestion, unless of course you wanted to scatter some clickbait.

Tom Pike ● 1752d

Let's face it KHAN HATES CARS. Have you seen him sat in one? Without a plumped up cushion and additional holy tomes to sit on to lift him to see the bee splats on his windscreen he has difficulty peering through the steering wheel of even the smallest of Morris Minis.

Bobbie Carnegie ● 1752d

Richard Greenhough suggested" preferring to make snide remarks."It was you yourself who introduced the concept of a "magic money tree" into this discussion, notme.If that's not "snide", implying that there's no moneyavailable and that tax rates will necessarily have to be raised, possibly to punative levels in order to make up TFL funding shortfalls, then I don't know what is.You could give lessons in "snide".  Obviously you'd prefer people not to mention themillions of pounds Boris's mates have snidelytrousered from the British taxpayer as a result of landing unscrutinised PEP deals duringthe COVID pandemic.No that's a " true politician's answer "Its not actually. Its simply confronting you withsome uncomfortable facts that you'd like to pretend weren't true.  The only surprise is that along with " the magic money tree" you didn't mention "the politics of envy".What with my constant references to Boris's mates ill-gotten gains.  michael adams

Michael Adams ● 1752d

Sensible people wouldn’t use the tube or rail network while Covid is so rampant. Sensible people would use the comfort of their cars.

Steve Taylor ● 1752d

Khan is only interested in making money.  He’ll move onto cyclists when he’s finished with the motorist. There’s millions of them apparently so there will be money to be made and it’s time they were held accountable for their misdeeds

Maggie Dodge ● 1752d

Just to remind you, the question you are avoiding was"..how would you go about tackling the problem ?"

Richard Greenhough ● 1751d

"..how would you go about tackling the problem ?"Richard, might I ask how you would go about tackling the problem?Better to start a conversation with your idea to get other ideas into the mix and then debating pros and cons of each. But the absence of one suggests you haven't a clue. Yet you demand Michael have all the answers. A bit odd.

David Lesniak ● 1751d

Of course, Tom, we could just go with reality. Euston Road eastbound has been reduced to a single lane to allow for a cycle lane that gets used by motorcycles near exclusively. At the underpass its always filthy so not a priority to keep clean (I wonder why?). The westbound cycle lane was removed almost immediately after it was installed. Yet the eastbound congestion remains. The cycle lane created congestion and people are not yet back to travel and work at pre-pandemic levels. Just because INRIX didn't study each and every inch doesn't mean it isn't happening. Yet that's your belief. You love your letterhead, don't you. But you loathe real life. Interesting.

David Lesniak ● 1751d

Michael is asking that the government spend "real money" tackling the problem without saying what it should be used for. It seems reasonable to ask what he thinks it should achieve.

Richard Greenhough ● 1751d

Obviously I can't speak for the whole of London but what I can categorically state is the tC9 has significantly increased congestion on CHR.Let's not forget that CHR  extends to the far side of Chiswick Roundabout and that the cycle infrastructure runs for only about half of this.So if you take CHR from start to finish you will get a very different result on the increased level of congestion.On the other hand if you look at a real world perspective, ie. the fifty percent that has cycle path infrastructure then unquestionably congestion has incereased.No prizes for guessing which some folk would have us believe.

Adrian Irving ● 1751d

You seem to enjoy them Julian 😂

Maggie Dodge ● 1751d

Yep, not rocket science. Many roads which were dual carriageway, specifically to keep traffic moving, are now reduced to single lane congested, high pollution, roads with largely unused cycle lanes running parallel. Madness. And this while car sales are increasing and more and more youngsters are getting driving licences!

Steve Taylor ● 1751d

"..more and more youngsters are getting driving licences"Do you have any evidence for that statement ? I had the impression that less young people, particularly in London, were learning to drive.

Richard Greenhough ● 1751d

"Just because INRIX didn't study each and every inch doesn't mean it isn't happening. Yet that's your belief."The INRIX data does cover the entire road network, including Euston Road. The length of the A404/501 from Edgware Road to Old Street Roundabout is listed as congested, with a 9 minus delay, although the new cycle lane is only a short stretch between Euston and King's Cross stations. There are no new cycle lanes along any of the other top five most congested corridors, so it's difficult to argue that cycle lanes have made any difference to congestion anywhere else. London traffic is back at prepandemic levels, so it's easy to check if even that short length of cycle lane has made a difference by looking at the travel delay along exactly the same stretch from Edgware Road to Old Street in 2019. INRIX listed it as the number one congested corridor that year with an 11 minute delay, two minutes more than the latest figure: the delay along Euston Road has actually fallen since the cycle lane was put in!

Tom Pike ● 1751d

Also reasonable to expect you being able to answer your own question.

David Lesniak ● 1751d

Given that it is Michael who wants "real money" to be spent, it seems fair to ask him what he would like it to achieve. I have not suggested that government (i.e. taxpayers) money should be spent so have no need to say what I think it should be spent on. Michael's failure to respond, first by trying to sidestep the question and then ignoring it (while continuing to post on other threads) suggests that his post was more about attacking the government than suggesting solutions.

Richard Greenhough ● 1751d

So you want us to believe that London traffic is back to pre-pandemic levels yet we see the Mayor announce a new scheme to prop up tourism to the West End. Hmm. Not to mention train travel being down into stations like Euston and KX not to mention folks like us who can track sales at these locations pre, during and semi-post pandemic not to mention the travel and thus tourism industry in general still being subdued to put it mildly. Hmm. And hmm. Do I mention cancellations due to this newest variant? Hmm.But now that you mention Euston Road, I was stuck in traffic there this morning. As I passed Great Portland tube station,  I saw flashing blue lights ahead. As I approached I saw a police car starting to head down into the underpass. I never take the underpass because it always takes longer. As I sat waiting for the light, I saw the officer on the passenger side get out, walk over to the cones segregating the road for the cycle path, move several of the cones then get back in the car. The police car somehow maneuvred into the cycle lane and went on its way. Mind you not a single cycle in sight. So not only was the responding vehicle stuck in traffic, it lost more time by finding a way out of the mess. And yet you want to tell us all, Tom, response time hasn't been changed let alone improved. Hmm. Hmm. Hmm. Hmm. Hmm. We can also now add a value to time lost to those like me who need to drive for business: 148 additional hours on the London road network. Given Uber drivers are now in line  to get the National Living Wage surely I'm in line for the same. So let's see now, multiply by £9.90...carry the one...and we find I've had to spend an additional £1465.20 this past year to get where I need to go for business. Do I pass that on? Do I tack it on to the additional cost for fuel? Electric? Supplies? Do I factor in increased PCNs for making a "wrong" turn into an LTN? Or not being able to access a loading zone? Not being able to park? Do I get to add in the new weekend charge for having to enter the congestion zone because the Westway is closed for repair? Hmmmmmm.

David Lesniak ● 1751d

Is government beyond reproach? Maybe not the day to enjoy that particular party line.Your silence can be seen as you agreeing with the state of things as they are. Supporting the government. It can also be seen as you attacking Michael. But I know he can hold his own so I'm not at all worried about him.

David Lesniak ● 1751d

Well said, David. Unfortunately the three anti car fantastics on this thread are too selfish and arrogant to even WANT to understand the problems caused by the unused cycle lanes.

Steve Taylor ● 1751d

Michael's point was that only "deluded zealots" wouldn't have known that cycle lanes increase congestion.He, Steve and others celebrated confirmation that the Inrix report confirmed what they already knew - patting themselves on the back for their foresight and calling those who didn't see it "morons".Of course the Inrix report said no such thing and those of you who suddenly discovered that data isn't all bad when it backs up your prejudices are left looking a bit daft.Many of you bear an excessive sense of victimhood in that the solutions to the problems we've all created with our cars involve using our cars less and sharing the road with other forms of transport, and you won't accept that.  Even to the point of blaming traffic congestion and pollution on cyclists, and not, you know, traffic.  However, you are being manipulated and you are the victims of clickbait journalism that gave you exactly what you wanted to hear so you'd visit the sites and share the stories.

Ed Saper ● 1751d

Michael's point was that he thought that government - i.e. taxpayers - money should be spent on tackling congestion in London. He has failed to say how he thought that money would be best spent.

Richard Greenhough ● 1751d

EdIt seems the report didn't refer to cycle lanes or suggest that cycle lanes were the cause of increased congestion. But the operation director of Inirix was quoted as saying they did, and he seemed to suggest there were the same number of vehicles now with less road space.So, i have some questions based on this.If traffic levels have returned to pre-pandemic levels as Tom has suggested, does that mean the increased cycle use has not reduced motor vehicle use?If so, does introducing cycle lanes and LTNs increase congestion? As Peter Lewis of Inirix suggested, there are the same number of motor vehicles sharing less road space.If traffic levels are the same and congestion has increased does that mean pollution levels will also increase?I think well designed cycleways are a good idea.  I think the cycle lane through Chiswick, when properly finished will end up a good addition to the high street.But let's not pretend that this is about anything other than making cycling more pleasurable and safer. Both worthwhile aims, but trying to suggest they deliver anything more than that seems a stretch.

Kieran Fox ● 1751d

Only a dullard would hit send before changing the word "fantastics" to the presumably-intended "fanatics".

Richard Greenhough ● 1751d

"So you want us to believe that London traffic is back to pre-pandemic levels"I'm not asking you to believe anything - that's what INRIX reported. For a brief few hours yesterday many of those who had previously dismissed data in favour of their "lived experience" clung to the headlines that INRIX had confirmed what they had always known. Finally the data had spoken: cycle lanes cause congestion!Except it turns out the data hadn't actually said that at all, so today it's back again to personal anecdote trumping data.

Tom Pike ● 1751d

TomI will ask you the same questions I asked Ed.  The report didn't refer to cycle lanes or suggest that cycle lanes were the cause of increased congestion. But the operations director of Inirix was quoted as saying they did, and he seemed to suggest there were the same number of vehicles now with less road space.So, based on this.If traffic levels have returned to pre-pandemic levels as suggested, does that mean the increased cycle use has not reduced motor vehicle use?If so, does introducing cycle lanes and LTNs increase congestion? As Peter Lewis of Inirix suggested, there are the same number of motor vehicles sharing less road space.If traffic levels are the same and congestion has increased does that mean pollution levels will also increase?I think well designed cycleways are a good idea.  I think the cycle lane through Chiswick, when properly finished will end up a good addition to the high street.But let's not pretend that this is about anything other than making cycling more pleasurable and safer. Both worthwhile aims, but trying to suggest they deliver anything more than that seems a stretch.

Kieran Fox ● 1751d

Tom you seem to not to know the difference between antidotes and people reporting their first hand observations and experiences. Relying on statistics compiled by third parties is one thing but dismissing other people's observations of what they see on the ground is a mistake which undermines credibility.

Adrian Irving ● 1751d

INRIX showed congestion in London was very slightly down compared to prepandemic levels. The latest TfL traffic counts for the London Road Network are 5% down, while cycling is up 25%. The cycle figures come from the automatic cycle counters, mostly in the congestion zone, and there motor traffic is still more than 20% down.So there's no need to pretend: the evidence shows a growth in cycling compared to reductions in motor vehicles, in relative and absolute terms. However, the tube is still down 35%, buses 20% and there's 30% less travel to work in London. A better picture of how this shakes out won't be apparent for a while yet.

Tom Pike ● 1751d

Anecdotal evidence is precisely "people reporting their first hand observations and experiences". I don't dismiss it, but if there is broader, verified, evidence that has been gathered in a systematic fashion, then it's a more reliable source of information.

Tom Pike ● 1751d

Tom. So traffic levels are still 5% down.  Didn't you previously say "London traffic is back at prepandemic levels"?If traffic levels are down 5% and congestion levels are only very slightly down.  Doesn't that suggest congestion has not decrease in line with reduced traffic?If traffic numbers get back to pre-pandemic levels will that make my previous statement true, that the increased cycle use has not reduced motor vehicle use?

Kieran Fox ● 1751d

I wouldn't put much weight either way on a 5% difference - or a smaller difference between congestion and traffic levels - the day-to-day variance is larger than that.For those avoiding both the bus and tube because of COVID, some will be able to make a choice between a bike and car. If more are deciding to cycle (and cycling is up) because of the improved infrastructure, then that reduces the number of cars on the road. Whether or not traffic levels reach or surpass pre-pandemic levels doesn't invalidate encouraging cycling to reduce the number who would otherwise choose to drive.

Tom Pike ● 1751d

"people reporting their first hand observations and experiences"."if there is broader, verified, evidence that has been gathered in a systematic fashion, then it's a more reliable source of information."Rubbish - broad evidence cannot possibly surpass what people report as their first hand observations and experiences. Broad evidence is simply a general feeling. It isn't definitive whereas first hand observations are true to the observer. 

Steve Taylor ● 1751d

That’s the opposite of the approach taken in evidence-based medicine Steve. If it wasn’t everyone would be taking ivermectin and dying of Covid. Big trials trump (small t) anecdote.

Edward Seaton ● 1751d

Sadly London's Roads are constipated with cycle lanes, and no one in the darn things. They need a good clear out to get things moving again.I had to go to St Mary's Hospital, Paddington last week, took the buses. It was an education, proving what I already knew from the cycle Lane in Chiswick, no body in them.One of the buses from Hammersmith was incorrectly numbered at the side, so for the first time in over 25 years I had to use a London black cab, I could not miss this appointment that I had waited for over 18 months.I had to ask the cabbie, what his views on the cycle lanes around London were ... 'don't go there' was his reply.I said, 'ah go on, tell me. He said THERE IS NEVER ANYONE IN THEM, but if you do see it's only one or two.My return journey on the buses, looking for people on bikes wasn't very fruitful either. Maybe they are cycling so fast, I just can't see them.London needs a good bus service, not clogged up space taking cycle lanes.

PATRICK MULHALL ● 1751d

Richard Greenhough asked"Just to remind you, the question you are avoiding was"..how would you go about tackling the problem ?"I'm not avoiding any question. But I apologise asI didn't realise you were a newcomer to Londonand so weren't aware of developements which are already in the pipeline.First there's "Crossrail" or the "Elizabeth Line"as we're now supposed to call it. Construction began in 2009. It was originally planned to openin 2018 but is now expected to open in 2022.Fingers crossed. One branch goes to Heathrow which will reduce pressure on the Piccadilly Linewhich will now also branch to Ealing Broadwayincluding Chiswick Park, instead of the District which will now just serve the Richmond Branchafter Turnham Green.In south-east London, the intention is to extendthe Bakerloo line to New Cross, Lewisham, and onto Catford, Hayes and Beckenham Junction; Its also planned to extend the Elizabeth Line past Abbey Wood as far as Dartford and Gravesend.I believe there are also plans to merge Euston Square, Euston, Kings Cross and St. Pancras into one single hub.Other developements are also in the pipeline but those should give you the general idea.But all these plans are of course dependent on moneybeing made available by Central Govt. As a newcomer to London, you clearly aren't aware that London Underground has never paid its way. Half of the central tube lines were financed by Charles Yerkes who essentially scammed his US investors and bond holders; while much of the rest was made by buying up, and subsequently selling off land for housing, which had itself been opened up by the new railway lines. A stroke of business genius if ever there was one.  You can of course find out all about these things online, if you're really that interested.michael adams... 

Michael Adams ● 1751d

Ed Saper explained" Michael's point was..." He, Steve and others celebrated confirmation "...Confused  as ever. If only you'd taken my advice andsat down with somebody else, so that between you, youcould have worked out what I actually wrote.*My actual point* was that people like  Steve would immediately blame the Mayor for policies which were a direct result of underfunding by Central Govt.While apparently, people who can work out for themselves that "if there are the same number of cars on the road now using less available road space, there will be an increasein congestion" are apparently being "manipulated" and are the "victims of clickbait journalism".You couldn't make this stuff up, if you tried.Far from being simply being "confused" or "well meaning"its now fairly obvious that you're simply another troll as well. Paul Campbell MkIImichael adams

Michael Adams ● 1751d

I think public transport is on a downward spiral Patrick, thanks to Khan spending all the money on anti motoring measures. Not to mention rainbow road crossings that frighten police horses and guide dogs. What a plank he is.

Maggie Dodge ● 1751d

Today my observations of King Street, Hammersmith.Resurfacing works for the cycle Lane, that should be used as a decent Bus Lane.Wait for a while and Khan will extend The Congestion Charge for the increased congestion that he has created.

PATRICK MULHALL ● 1751d

“ That’s the opposite of the approach taken in evidence-based medicine Steve”Perhaps. But this isn’t medicine is it?  You need to take your medical hat off for just a second. After all, you have simply read a different set of books to some of us. Think laterally for a change!  If not, be logical.

Steve Taylor ● 1751d

At last an attempt to answer the question, although exactly how and when the rail and tube developments mentioned are likely to address the question of congestion is a moot point. Anyway, despite the delays, Crossrail is proceeding. But you couldn't resist another snide remark, could you ? Just because someone is a "newcomer to London" (which I'm not) doesn't mean they may be unaware of the projects you mention. I thought you might have some original thoughts of how to tackle congestion, but it seems I was wrong.

Richard Greenhough ● 1750d

Richard Greenhough" But you couldn't resist another snide remark, could you ? Just because someone is a "newcomer to London" (which I'm not) doesn't mean they may be unaware of the projects you mention "What can possibly be "snide" in assuming that maybe a newcomer to London may be unaware of the projects I mentioned ?You seem to have a thing about "snide", don't you ?  Assuming you don't have a Kenneth Williams fixation, might I humbly suggest you research the topicof "psychological projection" ?michael adams 

Michael Adams ● 1750d

"Relying on statistics compiled by third parties"Adrian, this is cause for concern in my book as is Tom's steadfast belief in same. Compiled is it? Or is it distilled and dissected and presented and then twisted and turned and churned and further manipulated as we've seen over and over and over by Tom et al. Most likely it isn't even information at that point.But I had another think on this. If, as Tom says, traffic has returned to pre-pandemic levels yet we all know workers and tourists have yet to return to the same level, what then when everything goes back to so-called normal? Traffic will be worse than it already is. And as we've seen with the recent TfL strikes, when the overall movement network collapses, the new roadwork system cannot handle anything other than the minimum. You cannot use another lane or a shoulder to pass because the only thing in front of you and to either side is gridlock.

David Lesniak ● 1750d

Small niggle, Edward, as Steve mentions we're not talking about medical tomes which arguably are based on truth and science (despite the occasional epic fail by a start up - Theranos anyone? - we are talking about manipulated and inconsistent data which at times contradicts itself. And we're also talking about a body, namely TfL, which doesn't adhere to its own guidelines.Your in dermatology if I'm not mistaken. So it would be a bit like you disregarding the label and using a medication for something other than its intended purpose. And when that goes awry, which it will, you pretending you had nothing to do with the outcome.

David Lesniak ● 1750d

Infamy ! Infamy !

Richard Greenhough ● 1750d

In the meantime so many youngsters are learning to drive that there is now a 6 month waiting list for Driving Tests. With all these new drivers also now eligible to vote, any mayoral candidate, or even local councillor wannabes, will need to think very carefully about new cycle lanes and LTNs.

Steve Taylor ● 1748d

Steve, there was a long period in which you couldn't take a driving lesson or an exam because of COVID restrictions. Richard is right that the trend has been for younger people not to learn to drive. Of course, the new demand for delivery drivers may have encouraged a greater proportion of young people that this might be a useful qualification. I think we need rather more evidence that the backlog is not due to COVID restrictions before jumping to conclusions.

David McLoughlin ● 1748d

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2021/dec/13/how-a-myth-about-london-bike-lanes-and-congestion-took-flight

Philippa Bond ● 1746d

Try driving round Bournemouth with cycle lanes taking up half the main road ,the congestion is horrendous.

Peter Moore ● 1746d

I don’t read Richard’s posts because he is a troll so I have no idea what he said and I don’t care. However, I found the following quite interesting where they compare stats since 2014. Make of it what you will. “ In June 2021, the DVA received 5,463 applications for a driving test appointment. This is a significant drop compared with over 15,000 applications in May. However, it is 27% higher than the five year June average (4,314).The DVA conducted 6,619 driving tests in June. This is over 1,000 (1,100) more tests compared with the 5,500 tests conducted in May, and 57% higher than the five year June average (4,314). It is also the highest number of driving tests conducted for a single month since the beginning of our published series in April 2014.Private cars accounted for 82% of all driving tests conducted in June.”

Steve Taylor ● 1745d

The background, though, is of fewer young people driving:"Driving licensing among young people peaked in 1992/4, with 48% of 17-20 year olds and 75% of 21-29 year olds holding a driving licence. By 2014, driving licence holding had fallen to 29% of 17- 20 year olds and 63% of 21-29 year olds.""It is, therefore, difficult to envisage realistic scenarios in which all these future uncertainties combine in such a way as to re-establish earlier levels of car use."https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/673177/young-peoples-travel-whats-changed-exec-summary.pdf

Tom Pike ● 1745d

On the subject of congestion is the redesigned layout of the Kings Road/Goldhawk Road junction.From my initial observations it looks like there could be a problem.Traffic from the East wanting to turn right into Goldhawk have to wait for a gap in the traffic going east from CHR into Kings Road.If there are two or more vehicles doing this there is now not enough space to pass for traffic wanting to carry straight on into CHR.Result. Congestion, which has the potential to be bad.As I say this is an initial impression but I am monitoring it.

Adrian Irving ● 1745d

"I don’t read Richard’s posts because he is a troll.."Takes one to know one !

Richard Greenhough ● 1745d