Rockets

@Earl Aelfheah of course it is. You also dodged your question, are you still convinced after the 55% support nonsense you regurgitated that the majority supported the Dulwich LTN? Or have you changed your opinion when presented with actual fact rather than weak council spin? Is the Sydenham Hill consultation the only one left you can claim had "majority" support? Not sure how that gives the council a mandate for the ones in Dulwich do you?

So @DulvilleRes let me get this right...around Melbourne Grove it was commuters driving from Kent and Gilkes Crescent was full of semi-abandoned cars for people running a side-hustle....i always thought car depreciate over time. Have you checked what the roads nearby are like? This is why a lot of us have an issue with the self-centred and selfishness of many who love the new quiet roads but dont give two hoots about the impact it might be having on others. I'm alright Jack, I love my street transformed - who cares what's happening at the end of that street. @malumbu dont know about your cats but mine hardly ever stay put, they go everywhere...;-)

@malumbu maybe don't throw in road closures that create increased congestion...there's always that too isn't there? I am not on a train.....

One wonders as well how many of the residents who ignite the consultations have close ties to either the council or the active travel lobby.

Ha ha...thanks for validating my point Mal....good grief...

I think a lot of it is that nothing seems to work anymore, nothing is joined up and since Covid planning and delivery just arent lining up. Has anyone had anything close to the level of customer service big companies used to give before Covid...it's almost as if they don't care anymore and I can imagine in utilities with items being shipped from around the world that it is utter chaos. I hadn't been to that part of Dulwich for a while and it is really bad.

You can add a "consultation is not a referendum" to the growing lexicon of BS phrases spouted by those who know there is something to hide.. It joins such classics as: A small vocal minority You must be a right- wing pertrolhead There is majority support for these measures It was five years ago..move on Nothing can hinder cycle growth The council said it is so, so it is so

It's no wonder some truly believe that there was majority support for the LTNs when the council focuses only on the stats that validated its decision - the 55% support the aims of the Strretspace initiative was front and centre of the council's summation of the consultation yet no mention that most wanted it returned to its original state. This is something the judge in the West Dulwich case was highly critical of - a manipulation of the results to present a misleading picture. The problem is people believe what they are spoon-fed.

Funny how you dont want to go over it again when you've been shown to be wrong. So without the Dulwich LTN consultation to prove your point you're now left with just the Sydenham Hill one. That's hardly compelling evidence against the weight of consultations where clearly respondents said no. Honestly...sometimes it's like watching a White House Oval Office meeting with a head of state Trump and Vance don't like waving "proof" which upon proper analysis is nothing of the sort.

@Earl Aelfheah you really need to take a look at the actual data rather than the headline infographics the council put out. Below is the reality of the report that you have used to chmapion the headline 55% stat you have quoted. This headline hid a much more powerful stat that massively undermines your position. In the report, look at page 18...you will see this.... So you're absolutely wrong (again) - that 2021 consultation report actually showed majority opposition to the measures....it's there in black and orange.....anything to say about that? Dulwich Village consultation report.pdf But then you're happy to suggest (incorrectly) that the 2021 consultation report showed support for the measures.....hmmmmm

Oh dear @Earl Aelfheah. You have selectively plucked a response to a single question. Remember this was the consultation that didn't allow you to say no to the measures. The question response you have selectively plucked was whether respondents supported the aims of the Streets for People initiative which was a question that had diddly-squat to do with the specifics of the LTN. That's a huge reach to claim that is majority support for the LTN. And I am not going to argue with you again about the Sydenham Hill consultation. Maybe we should talk about all of the other consultations as well - do you have anything to say about those ones as the results were not at all in support were they?

I am sorry, for which consultations was there "majority support"?

Based on what exactly @Earl Aelfheah- a hunch -because every slightly more scientific consultation has suggested the exact opposite of what you claim? Given that is the only mechanism the council has given us to judge surely that is the bar?

Meanwhile on streets surrounding Gilkes Crescent the situation is very different? But that's the point, isn't it? Shoehorn a CPZ in on one street to create parking pressure on others so they ask for a CPZ. Dulwich had no parking issues until the council started installing CPZs....that's why 68% of people in Dulwich respondents to vote against them all those years ago. Creating parking pressure might be the only thing this council is good at....the Townley CPZ is the most ludicrous example of parking pressure creation as the council goes seeking more revenue. Can I ask, does anyone know what the motivation is to "semi-dump" or dump a car on a street? We hear that these are the new "Kent commuters" causing problems but what's the rationale for that? P.S. If my experience of emailing the council is anything to go by they tend to be quite selective about what they respond to and tend to be less than keen to engage beyond a cursory response if it's anything to do with LTNs/CPZs etc.

FM, the rate at which the council moves the online homes for many items I have now got into the habit of saving anything and everything as this is happening a lot.

Aren't there a few others going through/about to go through the High Court elsewhere the country? I presume Lambeth will have to refund any fines dished out in their unlawful LTN? Given the similarities between criticisms of the West Dulwich LTN by the high court judge and other schemes and the propensity for our councils to have, ahem, issues with oversight and getting the simplest of things wrong one does have to wonder how long it is before another LTN falls victim to council corner cutting as they rushed to get them installed, often against the will of local people with botched and misleading consultations. Place your bets folks....

@Earl Aelfheah feel free to start a new thread and I will happily take the discussion up with you there and to catalyse you to do it - I repeat - you are wrong with your assertions - very, very wrong but we have seen this time and time again, an inability for anyone on the pro-active travel side of the argument to be even be slightly pragmatic. You suggest I am suffering from cognitive dissonance which is surprising because I thought admin had banned people from making such accusations. @march46 usually has a hotline to council documents so maybe they can help, it is odd they have disappeared as some of the othe pages are still up: is this where they posted the results or was it somewhere else: https://engage.southwark.gov.uk/en-GB/projects/melbourne-grove-south-parking-survey Is this a council oversight or do they not want people to see the results of the survey?

Oh dear, wishful thinking on your part......the trial LTN in Streatham Wells was removed (or suspended as your comrades in Lambeth spun it! ;-))

Someone must have a copy saved somewhere. Strange that things are so hard to find on Southwark's website - I thought documents like that should be easy to find. I thought you wanted to find it again....;-)

The West Dulwich LTN is no more. It's gone, joining the Streatham Wells LTN on Lambeth LTN naughty step.

I did not see that report but a lot of Southwark reports are either being removed or are being moved - it's making things very difficult to find things unless you happen to have saved copies. There are a lot of 404 messages where there used to be reports. @malumbu please start a new thread. This tactic is starting to wear a little thin now....even though I do tend to bite on the bait....Melbourne Grove (not Road...ahem) CPZ or bust please....

Yes @first mate lets get this back on track. @Earl Aelfheah you're misguided on this I am afraid and completely wrong and I do wonder whether you just take these positions to be argumentative and distract from the thread in question but do start a new thread if you want to continue the debate...but bottom line is Lime bikes are not the active travel panacea you project they are and there is growing evidence that their use is not helping the very thing they were sold to us on because the usage is mainly switching existing journeys from walking and public transport. Here's my prediction on the Melbourne Grove - it goes to consultation and the majority respond no but a few will say yes (probably close friends of the council and the active travel lobby groups) and the council will decide to roll it out on one road which then creates a knock-on effect on other roads and they then go knocking on their doors talking about parking pressure.

Why is it a win if they arent using a bus or tube. The environmental impact of their journey on a bus or tube is very likely to be less that that on a Lime bike...or is it that you think as long a a bike instead of a vehicle is being used then it is a "win"? No I am not. What I am trying to point out to you is that for every person who jumps on Lime bike instead of walking or getting public transport that is an environmental negative. New journeys, what these people were house bound before seeing a Lime bike? No its not it's pragmatic commonsense that a lot of people agree with. "By any mode" isn't just cars...it's all journeys.......

@Earl Aelfheah I am not sure why you are struggling to understand this. If people are using Lime bikes for short distances instead of driving or being driven then that is a win for the environment. If people are using Lime bikes for short distances instead of walking or taking the bus then that is a loss for the environment - just because you are on two-wheels on a Lime bike doesn't mean you are immune to having an environmental footprint - have you seen the thousands of Lime bikes in and outside the warehouse near South Bermondsey station (have a look the next time you are on the train to London Bridge) or the fleets of "juicers bombing around London replacing the rechargeable batteries? Lime stated in 2023 that their research suggested that 8% of Lime bike users said they would have used a private vehicle, taxi, private hire, or car clubs if Lime e-bikes were not available. Lime also said that this would likely increase if further expansion to the outer boroughs was allowed as car use is higher in those areas - which very much suggests this is at saturation point without that expansion - to be fair the document that you shared was a Lime lobbying for more from TFL/Mayor's office research piece. If that 8% figure is accurate then Lime are taking journeys from walking and public transport. P.S. Did you know that your 35% stat of car journeys in London under 2km is selectively plucked from a 2011/12 TFL report comparing car usages across ALL London boroughs (the report stated that Bexley had the highest car use and Islington the least). More up to date data from TFL (2023) said that 35% of all trips in London are now under 1km (by any mode) and that was the highest % group so you might want to look for a more accurate and up-to-date stat because I am not sure how many of those journeys are now by car but I suspect it is nowhere near the 35% under 2km you claim.

It is common sense. If Lime can only claim 8% of their journeys are replacing car journeys then the remainder are replacing other forms of journeys - most likely walking (especially given the higher density of Lime bike journeys being done closer to the city centre where car journeys are naturally much lower anyway). I really think Lime bikes are having a negative environmental and social impact on cities as they are replacing walking (which is by far the best form of active travel) and encouraging a large number of users to be lazy. Nothing you seem to be suggesting convinces me otherwise. In Central London, and even as far out as Dulwich, walking has always been the preferred mode of travel for short journeys (what was the figure for Dulwich in the 2018 Transport Report - something around 65% - Southwark has removed the report). If Lime were replacing a higher percentage of car journeys then the outlook would be much better. This is always the risk of such schemes, that the way people use them actually contributes to the very problem it is trying to help. Very few people in London were using first and last mile journeys in a car (even the Melbourne Grove closure lobbyists tried to convince us the problem was people driving in from Kent! ;-))