Rockets

Hmmm, hold your horses Earl and Ex- I did some fact checking for you and according to Southwark’s latest Parking Report of the £17m surplus made from CPZ parking costs, PCNs etc over £2m of that was used to fund “LTN costs”, which throws your statement into some considerable doubt.

Absolutely. Clearly the council has laid a revenue-generating trap and I bet it is raking it in. The ludicrous thing is that if you did the same at the junction of Underhill 100 metres further up the road TFL would not have a problem with that. How are drivers supposed to know when there is no consistency? How can councils be allowed to set their own rules, over-zealously police it to levels not matched by TFL and not then admit it is about targetting drivers for revenue-generation?

🙂 Other interpretations may exist...

...so thought it might be interesting to post it here....#donshardhat.... https://www.londoncentric.media/p/london-transport-explained-in-nine-graphs-and-charts 9. Cycling is more popular after the pandemic but is still a niche form of transport. Cycling boomed in the pandemic, aided by the rush to invest in bike lanes and low-traffic neighbourhoods, which has pushed the number of bike journeys up by a quarter to 1.33 million journeys per day. Yet the overall picture is more mixed. Cycling remains a fairly niche way of getting around the capital compared to buses and the tube, while previous TfL research has shown it’s a mode of transport largely used by teenagers (who are short on cash and can’t legally drive) or older, richer, white men. Shaking the perception that it’s for those two demographic groups — potentially by embracing the ability of rental e-bikes such as Lime and Forest to entice new demographics into cycling — will be key to moving the dial.

Which are part of the council's stated approach on LTNs - they are intertwined...:-)

No it scores poorly because transport links are poor. As Bicknell rightly points out you'll struggle to find any reference to housing density in council reports about PTAL scores in Dulwich. In the 2018 Trnasport report for Dulwich the council cited poor PTAL scores for, in part, high car ownership. The council then stated that interventions should only happen in areas with high PTAL scores. Dulwich got interventions yet has poor PTAL scores. Why? Maybe because of the misleading lobbying folks like you did. There is clearly no clear case for them, per the council, in Dulwich Village.

....it's pinging anyone who even puts one wheel inside the bus lane as they turn left onto Overhill. TFL guidance is that they give you 20 metres or four car lengths grace if turning left into a junction across a bus lane but Southwark are not using that and issuing fines for the slightest infraction. Southwark's manta seems to be....If You Touch The Line You Get A Fine and a lot of people are falling foul of it as the gap from the solid bus lane line and the hash marks for the pedestrian crossing is really small (interesting that Southwark did not put a broken line ahead of the junction which some are suggesting is deliberate to create a revenue-generating fine hot-spot).

The council initially made changes to the junction that increased congestion and pollution (data from their own report back in 2017, I believe) There was an OHS consultation and the council failed to get enough local support to roll out new measures. These were in the days when they felt they had to respect local consultation feedback. Covid struck and the council saw the opportunity to make changes under emergency Covid rules (without the need for a consultation) - remember the closure was rolled out on the basis of "social distancing". They then partnered with an emboldened and empowered active-travel/cycle lobby/activist groups to fast-track their changes through ignoring the views of the majority of local residents. Of course I am sure some of the usual suspects will challenge this version of events but that's certainly an accurate summation of the timeline of events from someone who was paying close attention since pre-OHS days.

No, a common response when Rockets presents evidence that some steadfastly refuse to acknowledge. And a response Rockets uses when they refuse to get dragged into the usual death-spiral argument. I have made my point (very conclusively with evidence) to counter the position taken by others. Said others refuse to acknowledge the evidence. That's fine, that's their prerogative and I have been posting long enough on this forum to know that some will never change their behaviour and the denial approach is an often-used tactic. The problem is, as much as some would like, you can't rewrite history - it's there in black and white. Here's how these discussions go: - I say the council said something - Someone says no they didn't - I post evidence that shows the council did say it - People say no that's not right and then try to construct some ludicrous argument to take the discussion in a different direction. - Repeat ad nauseum Dulville, one presumes you are a resident of Dulwich Village, just tell me which parts of Dulwich Village have a high PTAL........ 🙂

Oh well Earl, we'll agree to disagree then! It's pretty clear what the council said and, as I said previously, they also cited the north of the borough in other documents. If you refuse to believe it thats up to you but the words written by the council in the document i posted are pretty clear and definitive. 🙂

Latest OneDulwich update. One Dulwich Campaign Update | 22 Dec Legal cases against London LTNs On 17 December, the High Court ruled in favour of Tower Hamlets Council after a legal challenge over its decision to remove three LTNs. (The Mayor’s statement highlights concerns about traffic displacement, delays to bus services and the impact on the emergency services and those with disabilities.) Meanwhile, in south London, West Dulwich Action Group in Lambeth are expecting to hear the date of their judicial review in January, as are Open Our Roads, who are challenging Croydon Council for introducing LTNs as a revenue-raising exercise. One Dulwich is in touch with both campaign groups. Dulwich Village junction re-design Although the redesign of the Dulwich Village junction has been completed, the concrete road block on Court Lane has still not been removed to allow emergency vehicles through. We have asked the Council to explain why. We have also asked why Blue Badge parking spaces have been moved much farther away from the shops, and why the Council has still not introduced signage, road markings or a speed limit to prevent collisions between cyclists and pedestrians. Separately, we have been advised in writing that the missing road sign for Court Lane will shortly be attached to the new lamppost outside 1 Court Lane. We send you our best wishes for the festive period, and our thanks for all your support in 2024 ENDS... Perhaps pro-LTN cheerleader in chief Jon Burke maybe sheds some light on why Southwark Council are so reluctant to allow emergency vehicle access at the DV junction....or is it just a case of too soon Jon....honestly....how rabidly blinkered do you have to be to post something like that?

🙂 #alwaysreadallthedocument

🙂 Pretty clear from the council and not at all embarrassing.....looks like some selective editing going on again by some... ..click the link to read for yourself.

It's like an episode of Scooby Doo...."darn it those pesky PTALs and council documents..." 😉 It's actually amazing how much of the pro-active travel lobby narrative is massively undermined by things previously published by the council...thank goodness for facts, historical council documents and good memories hey! #thethruthhurts

Ahem....see a few pages back.. this in relation to LTNs. My response is one of someone who made thier point very clear so doesn't feel the need to explain anything #oncebittentwiceshy 🙂

🙂

Which is an intervention is it not? Are CPZs not an intervention? Are they different because the council's narrative during the last CPZ consultation when they clumsily tried to convince people these were climate crisis interventions certainly made them one..... I think it is hilarious that the council desperately tries to create narratives to help justify what they want and yet it actually trips them, and their supporters, up because it often utterly contradicts what they have said before. History can be difficult when you try to manipulate an argument... It's most often the words of yesterday that do most harm to politicians....

Ha ha, well Ex- you know Southwark cite poor PTAL (transport links) as one of the reasons car ownership is so high in Dulwich....so maybe you should all lobby Southwark on their use of PTAL scores in official documents! 😉 It was the very same document that said that at 68% of journeys walked under one mile in Dulwich was one of the highest in the whole borough...so again, that doesn't fit with what you're saying or provide any rational for the need for interventions...it just doesn't add up. There seems to be a lot of attempts to rewrite history to suit a certain narrative going on here......#justsaying....

Except this is what they said....Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not true. They were very clear that interventions should only happen in areas with high PTAL scores....and that's not Dulwich Village...

Let's be honest it's not clear what the motivation is for CPZs and, for some reason, the council is hellbent on bringing them borough-wide. They were trying pre-Covid (68% of respondents said no) and have continued after (and the responses are even more in the negative) yet they continue their approach of spending tax-payers money on consultations to do one road at a time where they manage to garner just enough support to force a CPZ. Yet the council persevere against the wishes of the majority. The council goes out of their way to create parking pressure (extension of double yellow lines to the legal maximum) by every means open to them to try and create support for CPZs and still they can't get enough support to justify them. At the same time they tell us that we are reliant on cars in this part of the borough due to poor PTAL scores. So are they doing this just to spite drivers? Yet they fail to get enough support to roll out their plans but then spend tax-payers money on securing agreements with CPZ enforcement based on area-wide CPZs and then have surplus wardens who have no tickets to issue. So does anyone know why they are so obsessed with them? I am still convinced this is about revenue-generation and I bet a forensic accountant could tell us why it is so important to them and how they use the money to their advantage. Everything they do is about generating revenue at the cost of constituents. Because there is no other rational explanation for their utter obsession with rolling them out - there is zero environmental impact as they make no difference to car ownership nor journeys made. I am convinced they throw environmental messages in to drag the gullible into the debate. The council have yet to present a rational explanation and over the years they have lurched back and forth on reasoning - remember the supposed commuters driving from Kent nonsense they suggested the first time round. Someone knows and one day we may actually find out.

Concerns raised by a few residents...and then when consulted the majority of residents say no thanks and the council says....tough...we know what's best for you and drill down to a street by half street view of the detail!!! 😉

DB - completely agree but Labour could not do that as they would have never won the election - instead they were economical with the truth (all parties were) and now are learning some truths about economics! 😉

It's not a bad thing but when the government gives junior doctors 25%+, accepts the pay review recommendations (they don't have to) and then tells WASPI women - sorry, we can't afford your compensation, or they remove the Winter Fuel Allowance - it creates bitterness. What they meant to say is "we can't afford it for you". And when you see the role the unions of said public sector workers played in the run-up to the election you can start putting the pieces of the jigsaw together for yourselves....which is why teachers are so angry because they feel they got duped or aren't getting their part of the spoils of victory.

There is none. There is nothing to suggest CPZs reduce car ownership. There is plenty of evidence, however, that they generate huge amounts of cash for the councils that implement them and that councils will go out of their way to create parking pressure to try and convince residents they are the right thing. The councils love nothing more than create a problem where none exists so they can charge residents more money. Even more ironically, when Aldred & Co did a survey of the Brixton LTNs car ownership within the LTN actually increased....go figure...

I agree. If we are serious about becoming less dependent on car journeys then we have to facilitate other means for people to get around and if that leads to the inconvenience of having coaches parking near schools then so be it - we need a pragmatic approach. Pragmatism over idealism is the order of the day.