Southampton bike lane to be ripped out after Tories win control of council

Or we could have had an Alternative Vote vote on voting systems. But apparently that wasn't allowed because, um... reasons.

Labour still thought they had a chance of power. The Greens and the Lib Dems didn't have the resources to fight the press effectively. The Tory press promoted the staus quo and the great British public did what they were told as usual.

Jenova20 wrote:

....

It's also the same British Democracy where people had the option to change the electoral system when the Coalition Government came to power, and voted against changing it. People like this system.

I don't, and I am a person

I don't think that conclusion can be drawn in any case, especially as whether people liked the system wasn't the question asked. That was

"At present, the UK uses the "first past the post" system to elect MPs to the House of Commons. Should the "alternative vote" system be used instead?"

The most we can conclude on an incomplete data set was that around 19m voters (42% of those registered) turned out to vote on the question,  with ~6m (32%) voting yes, and ~13m (68%) voting no.

We can say that 6m (at the time) didn't like it I suppose, however, the obverse is not certain. 19m only "liked" this system better than the one that was proposed, which of course is not the same as liking it.

Jenova20 wrote:

It's also the same British Democracy where people had the option to change the electoral system when the Coalition Government came to power, and voted against changing it. People like this system.

No, the proposal was neither fish nor fowl, a complete abortion that was no significant change from the status quo, very little improvement at all.  Why can't we have proper proportional representation?  It works in other countries.

Very few people like this system apart from the tories, because it keeps them in power when most people voted against them.

Bungle_52 wrote:

Only if you believe our first past the post system is democratic.

I believe it's "democratic" (for certain values of democracy).

Tom_77 wrote:

Most of the network is incomplete, but the finished sections that I've used (Bursledon Road) are high quality. My concern is that the transport plan will now be ripped up and replaced by one that simply reads "More Cars!".

Oh, it won't simply say more cars, it will have large sections about congestion, pollution, public transport, active travel, climate change, danger etc, etc, THEN it will say "More Cars, and please ignore all those sections"

slitemere wrote:

Local cyclists have worked closely with the Labour council for the last 5 years to create better cycling facilities in the city. They are not perfect but there has been a will to focus on active travel, walking, cycling, we have an e-scooter trial ongoing and once Covid is under control plans for more bus lanes.
The new Tory council only have a 2 seat advantage so it would be very foolish of them to remove schemes that genuinely make living in the city better for people, and the pedestrianiation of Bedford Place which is crammed full of bars and cafes,  is great and is a showcase for what a city could be like when it is designed for the majority of the  people who live there, not the few who are passing through.
Perhaps in a year or two things will change again, but it is a sad day for cyclists in the city

You're missing the point.

This is all a consequence of the wonderful tribalism of modern politics.

When a city, or a region, or a country, change political leadership then the new administration spends the first half of its time in office destroying whatever it was that their predecessors did precisely and only because their predecessors did it.

It doesn't matter whether their predecessors' activities led to universal basic income, perpetual motion, cold fusion, and a cure for cancer, they will wotk to undo it because their predecessors did it.

ABP have plans to increase capacity at the port by 50% 

New cruise terminal opening this year, meaning they can service up to 5 ships and around 40,000 passengers per day. Whilst the new terminal has shore power (cold ironing) not all ships using it have the capacity to use it, meaning more pollution. And that's on top of the proposed container expansion.

The active travel elements of their plan are literally a drop in the ocean compared to the particulate emmissions of the ships, but that doesn't mean it should all be ripped out. The Bitterne Road West bus lane doesn't cause congestion (admittedly it might when the economy is fully open, but so many large firms are continuing to work remote) and is essential as it provides a safe corridor all the way from the eastern edge of the city and pretty much all the way out to the western edge.

I'm longer a cycle commuter in the city but Labour did a fantastic job at building safe routes. The western approaches in particular are transformed. What the city needs to complete the vision is proper park and ride provision but the problem is that the most suitable sites for that are under the control of other local councils. Southampton itself is pretty much fully built on the outskirts

kil0ran wrote:

Whilst the new terminal has shore power (cold ironing) not all ships using it have the capacity to use it

Doesn't sound very useful anyway - how's that going to get the creases out of your shirts?

mdavidford wrote:

kil0ran wrote:

Whilst the new terminal has shore power (cold ironing) not all ships using it have the capacity to use it

Doesn't sound very useful anyway - how's that going to get the creases out of your shirts?

I'm fairly sure it's something to do with cold fusion, and it'll be with us next year; to be sure; it will.  No really.

eburtthebike wrote:

mdavidford wrote:

kil0ran wrote:

Whilst the new terminal has shore power (cold ironing) not all ships using it have the capacity to use it

Doesn't sound very useful anyway - how's that going to get the creases out of your shirts?

I'm fairly sure it's something to do with cold fusion, and it'll be with us next year; to be sure; it will.  No really.

Isn't 'shore power' where they turn off the ship's engines and plug an extension lead into the mains to run everything while in port?

I think a Mr Fusion would work much better...

(edit:) Hang on!  According to Back to the Future, shouldn't we have Mr Fusions by now???

but "the people" were polled last Thursday and voted as they did, I dont think the Tories were shy about their plans if they gained control of the council, their campaign line was to "get Southampton Moving..." so it is what it is.

fwiw Southampton UA were only awared 245k in the first tranche of Active travel funding, which this bus/cycle lane on Bitterne Road West was funded from, and it doesnt look what youd call a high quality installation, even if it takes space from cars, its just paint on a road, yes a road that otherwise looks horrible to cycle on, but is this actually something that helps cyclists ultimately ? we'd need someone local to comment if it was of any use or not.

I don't know how well used those lanes were. Given the demographics of the area (affluent-ish but not particularly well educated), and the fact that it's hilly, I suspect not very.

Personally I was quite happy to cycle on Bitterne Road West before the cycle/bus lanes, but I know a lot of people would find a dual carriageway like that intimidating. It may just be paint, but the width of a bus lane makes it fairly safe feeling, it's not like a narrow strip of paint separated cycle lane, so I suspect those cyclists who did use it would have been happy with it.

And there isn't really a good alternative to get from Bitterne or areas east of there into town. SCN3 takes a back road down that hill, but it's just along a residential street which is steep, has lots of parked cars, and isn't quite as quiet as you would want for a cycle route. Personally I'd prefer the dual carriageway.

Mark B wrote:

Personally I'd prefer the dual carriageway.

That's why it needs a cycle track, because it's the most obvious and direct route, yet confronting for inexperienced cyclists.

They used the first tranche of funding in a few places, of which Bitterne Road West is possibly the only one that hadn't already been removed to some degree.

There was a cycle lane in each direction the whole length of The Avenue, the main arterial road from the north but the top section of that was blamed for congestion for traffic coming from the motorway and was removed previously. The rest further south remains, and some is permanent immediately north of the city centre.

There was also a cycle lane put in on the road to the west of the Common but again the northern most part of that has been removed. Complaints against that centred on the loss of on road car parking for people visiting the Common (including incredibly for Park Run) and the displacement of parking to the adjoining roads. So, the problem was actually cars not bikes, but the bikes lost out. 

The local Conservatives made opposition to these schemes a "culture wars" issue from the start, and saw the opportunity in championing complaints about them.

The local paper, The Echo, has been ever keen for a clickbait article that pits cyclists versus motorists, and made hay with this. 

The only plus was that spurred a few cyclists locally to a take over of their reader's cars column last year, which they responded to and which continues, with cyclists and their bikes outnumbering features on readers cars since then and hopefully presenting a more normalised view of cycling.

There's a bitter irony too as Royston Smith, Conservative mp for the east of the city, some years ago reacted to the death of a cyclist in his constituency by saying cyclists should choose their routes carefully, and use ones with cycle lanes. Hard when he has consistently opposed their introduction, and is now backing ripping them out. 

All in all it's a pretty deflating turn from Johnson's 'Golden Age of Cycling' announcement last year, but not a surprising one. The local resistance and obstinacy was obvious, and the Conservatives knew what they were doing championing it. 

What there's no word on as yet is the 'school streets' which see roads outside schools closed at the start and end of the school day to encourage children and parents to walk or cycle to school instead. They have quietly been gaining support and expanding to include more schools. They might achieve a change that results in people demanding better cycling and walking provision more widely.

Looking at  Southampton's demographics it looks like the swing was caused by small 'c' conservative, aspirational voters and, of course, the 54% who voted leave who feel unrepresented by Labour and the LibDems.   

My guess is that enough of these non-traditional Conservatives went to that very private place that is the voting booth and quietly placed a cross in the box of the parties that haven't spent since 2016 sneering down at them.

Chris Hayes wrote:

My guess is that enough of these non-traditional Conservatives went to that very private place that is the voting booth and quietly placed a cross in the box of the parties that hasn't spent since 2016 sneering down at them.

But the tories have been sneering at us for my entire life, that of my father, and his father before him, not just since 2016.  The only difference now is that they do it so utterly blatantly, but the sheep still believe the msm.  Boris is a cult, just like Trump.

Was 'cult' a typo

eburtthebike wrote:

But the tories have been sneering at us for my entire life, that of my father, and his father before him, not just since 2016.  The only difference now is that they do it so utterly blatantly, but the sheep still believe the msm.  Boris is a cult, just like Trump.

Bravo Burt, bravo.