Rockets

No I believe the council is over-zealously targetting motorists in the pursuit of generating revenue to fritter on vanity projects like Dulwich Square and go to great lengths to convince people that they are not doing so folks come onto public forums like this to defend them and claim it's not about generating revenue - to be fair they had managed to convince you these revenues were not spent on LTNs and a little bit of research massively undermined that position. Do you think they are not abusing the powers handed to them and that this is fair and reasonable, especially in light of the way TFL manages it?

What does the document say Earl.....?

Nah, not buying it. I think it is because Southwark is hellbent on raising as much revenue as possible from motorists to help fund vanity projects like Dulwich Square. The evidence is very compelling don't you think? I mean your own photo speaks volumes in the breaking of the bus lane well in advance of the left turn at Underhill that TFL manages yet Southwark have half a car's length break ahead of the one at Overhill...and Southwark saying any breaking of the bus lane line is deemed a punishable offence....and a recently placed enforcement camera just at that spot...the evidence certainly suggests I may have more than a strong case that Southwark is setting a trap for motorists. I mean, putting a camera up there probably cost a fair bit...why else did they suddenly chose that spot? Cher ching...get that cash rolling in to supplement the millions they get from other strategically placed cameras... The AA quite rightly voiced concerns about handing power over to local authorities ahead of it happening and they were spot on - the power is clearly being abused and has nothing to do with traffic management or saftey but all to do with revenue generstion. Kind of shameful for a supposedly socialist authority like Southwark to be targetting their constituents like this. I wonder how many working people have been entrapped this way - quite a lot I suspect?

Earl, do a search for TFL Enforcement Operations Agreement Schedule 2 Appendix 09 – TfL Business Rules. Check out point 1.15.....what does it say...? Yup, and I bet Camden raised a fair bit of extra revenue with that one...it's madness that local authorities are given the power to do this. I wonder if the police need to retake the authority on this as clearly local authorities are abusing it.

I know it's pantomime season but...oh yes it does....advance warning Earl: I have done my research...;-) With good reason - because the confusion and lack of consistency between each authority creates revenue generating opportunities....which local authorities embrace whole halfheartedly....it's pretty shameful

It's not irrelevant at all because, as your first picture aptly demonstrates, TFL breaks the bus lane well in advance of the left turn junction and then continues it after the junction to allow drivers four car lengths or 20 metres to drive across the bus lane. Southwark does not. And Southwark puts a camera up at that junction. Why? I tell you why, because they want to generate revenue from unsuspecting drivers turning left and clipping the bus lane. There is no other explanation. It's council-led revenue generation and absolutely an abuse of the powers given to local authorities.

TFL affords drivers four car lengths or 20 metres to drive across/in a bus lane when turning left. Why doesn't Southwark council do the same?

That was not my question, my question was why do Southwark chose to not take the same approach as TFL? I think you know the answer to that...;-)

I do wonder if part of the strategic approach being used by the likes of Southwark is to actually create more congestion.

Ha ha, what utter nonsense - some massive creative licence being applied there on your part Earl. There is a big difference between driving in a bus lane and driving across a bus lane to make a left turn....

But TFL, as you so aptly demonstrated with your original picture, give cars turning a good distance to do so without infraction upon the bus lane. So the question is, who do Southwark not do the same? You keep telling us that these measures are not about revenue generation yet in a 100 metre stretch of road we see two very different approaches - one of which is clearly designed to catch drivers infringing. And one where the council has decided to strategically place a camera. I bet that spot is a big revenue earner for the council, catching people clipping the bus lane as they turn left into Overhill, especially during times of queuing traffic. More money for their vanity projects like the Dulwich Square LTN to keep their local cheerleaders happy!

Earl, Overhill junction not Underhill...you've used a picture from the Underhill junction. That's the TFL one at the junction of which probably explains why the bus lane finishes 4 car lengths or 20 metres ahead of the junction. Now compare it to the one at the council revenue trap at the Overhill junction....you see the difference? Two junctions 100 metres apart but two very different intentions from the authorities managing them...one is road management the other revenue generation. P.S. thanks for helping illustrating my point for me!

But you have to agree that the powers given to local authorities to issue PCNs for things like bus lane and yellow box infringements does seem to be being abused so they can generate more revenue from drivers. Does it not? Is it not slightly odd that TFL rules say one thing and Southwark rules say another…..100 metres further up the road and TFL rules apply….how on earth are motorists supposed to know whose rules apply and at what point….it’s utter madness….like the yellow line rules which always were easy to understand until local authorities were allowed to determine their own rules. Such high revenue generating traps are clearly being laid to catch unsuspecting motorists and using them for revenue generation to fund vanity projects like Dulwich Square. The positioning of the camera at that junction suggests the council knows exactly what it is doing and has designed it to catch people turning left onto Overhill. it is utterly shameful and someone really needs to be held to account. The fact that TFL gives some limited leeway for those turning left across a bus lane and the council doesn’t speaks volumes - just 100 metres up the road different rules apply….

Malumbu, when you drove in a bus lane were you 20 metres or four car lengths from the end of the bus lane and turning left into a junction off the bus lane? If so TFL would rescind any fine as they would deem that OK as you were turning left. Southwark Council says it is not OK and if you touch the line you get a fine. Why do you think that might be?

No Malumbu, a thread highlighting how Southwark council makes it's own rules in the pursuit of generating revenue from motorists and ignores the guidance set by the authority responsible for roads in London - namely TFL. Why do you think Southwark does that? I will tell you why, because I know you will never answer, because they do it to maximise the revenue generated by such cameras. Southwark Council is laying traps to generate revenue from drivers. In fact, they are entrapping drivers in their pursuit of revenue generation. It was this sort of behaviour that people were concerned about when the power to police was handed over to local authorities- that they would abuse the power they had been given and it is quite clear they are doing exactly that. Happy to discuss but I have a sneaky feeling you won't want to....

I refer my good friend to the bus lane camera thread in the other section for how the council set/bend rules to ensure maximum revenue generation. They may also recall the original placement of the signs on the entrance to Burbage making it impossible for drivers to see them as they approached from Gallery Road and the "errors" that led to signs being placed along Townley with the wrong operating times on them. But, as one of the lobbyists for these measures, perhaps you can tell us why times closures were necessary in Dulwich Village...what purpose/agenda were they serving? Here's what I think. The council knew there was going to be massive displacement of traffic from the DV LTN, as did the Village LTN lobbyists who helped them get it in place, and it was the quid pro quo to appease the council supporters.

Please do share...because for many of us who live here it remains an utter mystery..

Can anyone provide a reasonable rational for these restrictions being in place in DV at all....it seems utterly bizarre...and, I suspect, done to satiate the various lobby groups based in Dulwich Village?

They are designed with revenue generation in mind. If they confuse and that leads to more PCNs being issued then the council is happy as they then have more money to invest in, amongst other things, LTNs. I am amazed that there isn't an authority providing some oversight on the design of these things but since councils got the power to police these things they have been more than happy to set and bend the rules.

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.