New Station

[spen666]

He isn't saying it will definitely not be enough, he is suggesting it should be at least as many as the Cambridge stations to encourage more use of bikes.

But he is unable to produce any evidence other than made up assumptions to support his suggr

 

[spen666]

Sorry if it was unclear, but the Chelmsford station entries/exits is the actual figure from the Office of Rail and Road; the proportion of journeys to be done by cycle, bus and foot is the actual figure from current adopted government targets; and the number of bus seats is the actual number of service calls in the morning peak hour multiplied by 50 (bustimes says most are single-deckers with fewer seats and all the peak hour calls this morning were single deck, but it's not impossible there might be a few doubles some days).

The only hypotheticals were what proportion of the entries/exits are return journeys, what proportion of those will be from the city itself and how they will split bus/bike/foot. I know that my own borough currently has more walkers than cyclists and more of either than bus passengers, but I don't know the split for Chelmsford, nor what they're aiming for. Please provide the figures if you have them.

Current usage is largely irrelevant. We don't estimate whether a bridge is needed from the number of people swimming across the river. We need to decide what we want to see (half of journeys by bike, bus or foot) and then provide the infrastructure to enable it, same as has long happened for motoring.

So where are the figures re the need for more cycle parking provision. Just because Cambridge has more is not an argument to support more parking at Chelmsford.

I hate to break it to you, but Cambridge and Chelmsford are different places, both geographically, and population make up.

 

[Alex321]

So where are the figures re the need for more cycle parking provision. Just because Cambridge has more is not an argument to support more parking at Chelmsford.

I hate to break it to you, but Cambridge and Chelmsford are different places, both geographically, and population make up.

You really don't understand what he is saying, do you?

 

[spen666]

You really don't understand what he is saying, do you?

I understand he is unable to back up his claims with any tangible evidence or figures


Anyway, it's irrelevant because the station has the parking it has and his view, your view or mine is irrelevant

 

[Alex321]

I understand he is unable to back up his claims with any tangible evidence or figures


Anyway, it's irrelevant because the station has the parking it has and his view, your view or mine is irrelevant

Your asking for those figures shows you really don't understand the claim he is making.

 

[mjr]

So where are the figures re the need for more cycle parking provision. Just because Cambridge has more is not an argument to support more parking at Chelmsford.

The figures are in my earlier post! Actual figures from the gov.uk office of road and rail and department for transport. 15,800 entries/exits per day on average, and 50% of urban journeys by active travel or public transport. Then the number of buses calling in the morning peak is an actual number from the department for transport bus open data service. Show me any reasonable calculation from those that suggests 1000 cycle spaces is enough to meet the target.

None of this is about Cambridge. It's a calculation based on Chelmsford evidence. Please either show other evidence or justify a different calculation that suggests just 1000 spaces is enough, but please don't say there's no evidence or that this is something about Cambridge. Cambridge was just an example of where we need every city to be and to show that Greater Anglia will build bigger cycle parks where councils aren't car-obsessed.

 

[spen666]

Your asking for those figures shows you really don't understand the claim he is making.

No, my asking for the figures to back up the claim shows I am asking for the figures to back up his claim.

Where is the evidence to support the need to be providing more parking spaces at this specific station?

 

[spen666]

The figures are in my earlier post! Actual figures from the gov.uk office of road and rail and department for transport. 15,800 entries/exits per day on average, and 50% of urban journeys by active travel or public transport. Then the number of buses calling in the morning peak is an actual number from the department for transport bus open data service. Show me any reasonable calculation from those that suggests 1000 cycle spaces is enough to meet the target.

None of this is about Cambridge. It's a calculation based on Chelmsford evidence. Please either show other evidence or justify a different calculation that suggests just 1000 spaces is enough, but please don't say there's no evidence or that this is something about Cambridge. Cambridge was just an example of where we need every city to be and to show that Greater Anglia will build bigger cycle parks where councils aren't car-obsessed.

The figures in your earlier post are nothing to do with cycling usage. The number of people using the station is one thing, the invented figures by you re cycling usage are simply that - invented and based on assumptions.
How many people cycle to Chelmsford Station now and how many cycling parking spaces are used there each day?


Its is you who is claiming the cycling provision is not enough. All I am asking for is the evidence to back that up. You seem rather reluctant to provide and evidence to support your claim.

What happens in Cambridge is irrelevant to what is happening in Chelmsford, They are very different locations, geographically and in its population make up as well as total numbers of population. The fact Cambridge has a lot of cyclists does not mean Chelmsford will

 

[mjr]

The figures in your earlier post are nothing to do with cycling usage. The number of people using the station is one thing, the invented figures by you re cycling usage are simply that - invented and based on assumptions.

The target for people travelling by bus, bike and foot is not my invention.

How many people cycle to Chelmsford Station now and how many cycling parking spaces are used there each day?

Who cares? The situation now is largely irrelevant except for deciding if the shortage is so acute that there ought to be immediate expansion, but this is about planning not management. No transport is planned well only by looking at current use. Would you use how many people are jumping on or off trains at Beaulieu now as an assessment of demand for the new station there next year?

Its is you who is claiming the cycling provision is not enough. All I am asking for is the evidence to back that up. You seem rather reluctant to provide and evidence to support your claim.

I have provided the evidence and explained the calculations based on it that suggests there isn't enough to deliver current transport policy. You seem extremely reluctant to offer alternative figures or a credible alternative calculation of the needed provision.

By all means disagree and point out where I might have erred (for I am only human and sometimes miss things), but it would be very nice if you could support that disagreement with some evidence beyond there currently being available parking spaces at some times. It is quite likely that there are other measures needed to meet the policy targets which are currently suppressing demand, but that doesn't mean the parking size is sufficient already.

What happens in Cambridge is irrelevant to what is happening in Chelmsford,

Up to a point. It's the same train company and it shouldn't be allowed to let any other of its stations cycle parking get to the legendarily awful state of Cambridge's old station cycle parking before the multistorey was built.

 

[Alex321]

No, my asking for the figures to back up the claim shows I am asking for the figures to back up his claim.

Where is the evidence to support the need to be providing more parking spaces at this specific station?

Perhaps you could tell us just what you think he is "claiming" then?

Because I don't think it is what you are thinking it is, based on your demands.

 

[spen666]

The target for people travelling by bus, bike and foot is not my invention.


Who cares? The situation now is largely irrelevant except for deciding if the shortage is so acute that there ought to be immediate expansion, but this is about planning not management. No transport is planned well only by looking at current use. Would you use how many people are jumping on or off trains at Beaulieu now as an assessment of demand for the new station there next year?


I have provided the evidence and explained the calculations based on it that suggests there isn't enough to deliver current transport policy. You seem extremely reluctant to offer alternative figures or a credible alternative calculation of the needed provision.

By all means disagree and point out where I might have erred (for I am only human and sometimes miss things), but it would be very nice if you could support that disagreement with some evidence beyond there currently being available parking spaces at some times. It is quite likely that there are other measures needed to meet the policy targets which are currently suppressing demand, but that doesn't mean the parking size is sufficient already.


Up to a point. It's the same train company and it shouldn't be allowed to let any other of its stations cycle parking get to the legendarily awful state of Cambridge's old station cycle parking before the multistorey was built.

So its irrelevant to know if current provision is enough?

Its irrelevant to ask how many cyclists use existing provision?


Hypothetical or imaginary figures are not answers to questions about actual usage

Quite clearly you are not willing to provide figures as to the current usage, despite demanding more provision.

Aspirational government transport policy is one thing, but providing spaces that are not, on the evidence you have produced, currently needed is a waste of money at this time . Far better to provide equipment when it is needed not when there is insufficient demand for it.

 

[Alex321]

So its irrelevant to know if current provision is enough?

Its irrelevant to ask how many cyclists use existing provision?

Yes to both of those.

Hypothetical or imaginary figures are not answers to questions about actual usage

Actual current usage is not relevant.

Quite clearly you are not willing to provide figures as to the current usage, despite demanding more provision.

Aspirational government transport policy is one thing, but providing spaces that are not, on the evidence you have produced, currently needed is a waste of money at this time . Far better to provide equipment when it is needed not when there is insufficient demand for it.

This is all about that "aspirational government policy", and what would be required if that policy were achieved.

What he was claiming was that IF that policy is achieved, THEN more cycle spaces will be needed (and that provision should be based on the hope that the policy will be achieved).

 

[spen666]

Yes to both of those.

Actual current usage is not relevant.



This is all about that "aspirational government policy", and what would be required if that policy were achieved.

What he was claiming was that IF that policy is achieved, THEN more cycle spaces will be needed (and that provision should be based on the hope that the policy will be achieved).

So, you think Government / rail companies are going to spend £££s on something you can't even show thewre is a demand for?
Its is easy when its someone elses money you want spent
Meanwhile, back in the real world...

 

[mjr]

So its irrelevant to know if current provision is enough?

Its irrelevant to ask how many cyclists use existing provision?

Yes and yes.

[...] Quite clearly you are not willing to provide figures as to the current usage, despite demanding more provision.

Agreed. I'm not even willing to go find them, they're so irrelevant to whether the provision is sufficient.

Aspirational government transport policy is one thing, but providing spaces that are not, on the evidence you have produced, currently needed is a waste of money at this time . Far better to provide equipment when it is needed not when there is insufficient demand for it.

Current usage is not a direct measure of demand.

I see you ignored my question and are clearly not willing to provide figures for how many people are jumping on or off trains at Beaulieu now. Surely you must conclude that providing a station that is not currently needed is a waste of money at this time and it would be far better to provide a station only when enough people are jumping to and from trains to merit it, not when there is insufficient demand. I think that's an absurd way to plan transport provision.