Rockets

Does anyone know what the Environment Reserve is spent on, I still can't find any reference to it anywhere bar the annual parking report. I know the council has a Climate Emergency fund but surely if this was topping that up then it would be called out as such?

There doesn't seem to be any regularity to the pattern of the wriggly lines between the different parts of the paving which is a bit odd. Parts of it look like directions for something to be done to it whilst others don't. And what on earth is the big tree drawn in front of one the shops supposed to indicate...plant tree here, if so that's an odd spot for one? It's not Egyptian hieroglyphics certainly - maybe coded messages from outer space! 😉

I will bring some lino and we can have a good old fashioned break dance competition - I will bring my Street Sounds cassette collection....;-)

Malumbu - I am not sure you're allowed to say that anymore are you....haven't you been warned about that before? Anyway, as a community-minded person I am merely looking out for my neighbours and postcode peers - so watch out folks - Southwark is laying revenue-generating traps for you - be one your guard!!! There-ends the public service announcement.....;-)

But one of the stated strategic aims of LTNs is to reduce car ownership is it not - surely even you can agree with that? Because what Aldred's report shows is that car ownership increased as the number of parking permits increased by 9% within the LTN in the period after it was installed. Not sure how that is an "outrageous mischaracterisation" as it is in black and white in Aldred's report......

Ha ha....another who is afraid to answer.... All of the assembled evidence presented is clear (to anyone not blinkered by their own vested interest)....;-)

But is not one of the stated strategic aims of LTNs to reduce car ownership/use because it is in that context that I have been presenting that information?

Nah...it's a legitimate question in the context of the thread and discussion. And a question you clearly are not prepared to answer - we can only hazard a guess as to why.....;-)

Earl, you appear to have missed/ignored my question to you...;-)

Earl, firstly I think the only thing I have said about Railton Road LTN is that Aldred's own research confirmed an increase in the number of cars within the LTN between the LTN going in and the conclusion of the research - which it very much does. On everything else I have supplied lots of evidence to prove my assertions were correct and hardevidence from the council and TFL's own publicly available documentation and you dismiss them as "confirmation bias". That's fine but it doesn't mean they are wrong or not accurate or that you aren't just in "confirmation denial". 😉 Just because you chose not to accept it does not mean I, or the evidence I present, are wrong and let's be honest Cllr McAsh could be on here confirming what I presented to be true and you would still be arguing about it!

Slightly shorter...let's take a look at that and do some proper analysis based on the images you posted... Underhill Road (TFL) - no camera policing the bus lane Overhill (Southwark) - a new camera policing the bus lane Yes they will but if you appeal on the grounds that you did not move into the bus lane for more than 20 metres before making a left turn they will let you off. And that is an undeniable fact confirmed by TFL's own document published on their own website. This is why the Underhill TFL junction breaks the bus lane 20 metres ahead of the junction because drivers have a 20 metre grace period so clearly if you enter the bus lane before than and turn left then there is no ground for appeal. So, you ask me the question whether you can make the turn at Overhill without clipping the bus lane. Of course you can but here is a question for you - which junction are people more likely to clip the bus lane and receive a fine from the newly installed camera? And why do Southwark not break the bus lane 20 metres ahead of the junction at TFL do? Of course if Southwark did that there would be no need for the camera and if they had no camera there would be no revenue generated from that junction. So the weight of evidence very much supports my suggestion that Southwark have designed that bus lane at their junction to create a revenue generating hotspot and if they weren't doing that then why go to the cost of installing a camera - much cheaper would have been to follow TFL's lead and stop the bus lane earlier - would you not agree? The evidence is there for all to see and I would love to know where that particular camera comes on Southwark's revenue generating camera Top 10! 😉

Read my first post then look at the two pictures Earl shared of the two junctions on Thursday. The first is the TFL junction, the second is the Southwark junction. Play spot the difference and then return again to re-read my original post once you have the context from the pictures and then sprinkle in the fact Southwark has camera at their junction (TFL does not) and it will validate my original post. Enjoy!

I refer you to the previous posts on this thread....;-)

Is that your professional opinion? 😉 It's important to warn people of the traps Southwark is laying for drivers to generate funds to pay for vanity projects like Dulwich Square! Power to the people! 😉

But as a transport professional who has worked on driving standards, why do you think that we have two junctions within 100 metres of each other that are designed, policed and enforced in two very separate ways. Surely as someone who has worked on driving standards then you must understand the role consistency of design, policing and enforcement has on improving driving standards? So why then has Southwark designed their junction in the way they have and decided to put a camera up to police it when TFL has not…..? I think you know the answer but are just afraid to acknowledge it…..

Ha ha, if that is the best a self-professed and self-promoted transport professional with, supposedly, years of "transport" experience can come up with is it any surprise these types of interventions are such a shambles? Also love how you repeatedly conclude it was me...jumping to conclusions is something many seem to love to do on the pro-lobby but more often than not conclusions are massively, and conclusively, undermined by facts....which leads me to the whole point of this thread.... It's clear Southwark has designed that junction, and many others, with the sole intent to raise revenue to fund things like LTNs. They go out of their way to lay traps for drivers to bolster their revenue streams. It's clear for all to see.

But Malumbu, please share with us your professional opinion on the design and enforcement of the two junctions....let's at least make your detour in your car worthwhile...

But DKHB, why does the TFL junction 100 metres up the road break the bus lane line 20 metres ahead of the left turn and the Southwark one about 3 metres ahead of then junction..and then why do Southwark have camera to enforce a fine for clipping any part of the bus lane whilst TFL do not (they dont have a camera at the Underhill junction)....I think we all know the answer don't we? It's vehicular entrapment for the sake of revenue generation for the council.

Given your rap sheet for driving offences I am quite surprised you are so supportive of such measures....oh the irony if you got a PCN during your (exploratory yet not very environmentally friendly) detour to assess the road layout so you could share your wisdom on it! But I am quite disappointed that you have not taken my invitation to share your years of transport professional experience on why the two junctions are so different in layout and enforcement. It would be good to get your expert opinion because I am sure you have come across similar examples.

Brilliant! I appear to be the designated poop fairy in our household! I think those who also hold that esteemed position should be rewarded with a T-shirt and wear it with pride!

I think the point here is Southwark, increasingly, is laying traps to get drivers to pay for the slightest indiscretion for no reason other than to generate to fund ludicrously wasteful projects like the Dulwich Vilage LTN. Drivers are clearly additional revenue source number for Southwark and if you want/need to drive and car or park a car they see you as fair game. Remember Southwark revenue generation has more than doubled (well on the way to tripling) in 5 years - which is phenomenal and if they had got their way with CPZs it would have increased even more. They are attacking drivers by laying traps and applying thier own rules in enforcement. It's scandalous, especially over the course of a cost of living crisis and the council should be ashamed. Long live socialism, comrade! P.S. I would have thought you would have learned from Earl's lesson about jumping to conclusions about whether I got a fine or not! P.P.S why are you such a huge fan of Southwark, do you idolise your own local council as much? Perhaps you have a vested interest to declare....you're not another Cllr Pollack are you? 😉

The irony is of course that each and every one of these have been proven to be true...it's just some steadfastly refuse to acknowledge it! The fact these even get cited as misrepresentations after everything presented shows how laughable this has become. Some people do their side no favours at all....

To be fair if you preach constantly to others about unneccessary car use surely you must expect others to play it back to you when you do it? Are you not opening yourself up to accusations of being somewhat hypocritical? It's clear the Southwark junction bus lane and camera placement has been designed with revenue generation in mind.

If anyone has any clue what the Environment Reserve is spent on that would be good to know as £6m is a bit chunk of cash and when I looked at the full accounts for the council I could find detail on a lot of the reserves but not the environment one.

I have nothing to hide and more than happy for my posts to be read, read again and re-read. If anyone goes back to December 20th they can see exactly what you said and no matter what spin you put on it your message was clear...but I suggest they do it quickly before you go to re-edit them....;-) Bottom line is CPZs and PCNs do fund LTNs...#factchecked