Rockets

So what powers did the Mayor delegate to TFL for the running of the e-scooter programme then? By default does that not suggest that the power lay with the Mayor's office in the first instance and that TFL were then handed the decision-making authority? Is it completely different for e-bikes - The London Councils' website lumps e-bikes and e-scooters together but is very little publically available on the mechanisms behind e-bikes, does anyone know where it is located? Here is what the website says: https://archive.londoncouncils.gov.uk/our-key-themes/transport/rental-escooters-and-ebikes Rental e-bikes The rental market for e-bikes is unregulated at the national level but some boroughs have agreements in place with one or more operator(s). Following a discussion at London Councils' Transport and Environment Committee, TfL, London Councils and London boroughs will now be exploring the design of one coordinated future scheme to manage dockless e-bikes and e-scooters in London, through a contract, to improve parking, while increasing the quality and sustainability of services in London.

Up 91% in a year in peak commuting hours rather than 100% year on year growth - that's a key difference. https://www.ft.com/content/730d4dab-e80a-4e14-a343-abafd868c5f0 The article also says the people are increasingly using them for first and last mile journeys (which probably explains the 91% growth) - to and from tube and railway stations etc - which is great as long as they are not replacing walking. If my kids usage is anything to go by then laziness tends to be the over-riding factor as they jump on them when we come back to our local stations for journeys they used to walk and only took a few minutes. The article is well worth a read as it goes some way to explain why the carpet bombing of bikes by various companies is creating the challenge - the VC funded gold-rush is blinding everyone to the impact they are having on streets and residents. I very much sense, given the £ involved, it will get worse before it gets better as operators and councils are distracted by the revenue generating opportunities. No. Are you sure? https://www.london.gov.uk/md3227-delegation-mayoral-powers-continuation-e-scooter-rental-trial

And another one - the Eton's of this world won't be impacted it will be the smaller schools that take the hit like this one - the smaller schools whose fees are much lower (£3,400 vs Eton's £16,000) and whose parents don't have the financial means to stretch further and whose margins are much smaller. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdxl77njlq8o

😉 But wasn't it TFL who are managing the London programmes after the Mayor delegated his authority to them - he certainly did that for e-scooter trials? And on that someone asked who is making money from this - the borough's are (if the same type of model is being used for e-bikes as e-scooters). I found this (it seems very difficult to find anything on e-bike trail costs but the London Councils website seems to lump e-bike and e-scooter trials together) 5.2. In addition to covering their costs of delivery, each operator will be required to pay charges in respect of every e-scooter and full-service or ride-through borough. As set out in Appendix B, charges paid per operator will vary every period and depend on the number of ride-through and full-service boroughs participating, as well as the number of e-scooters in their fleet. Distribution of these payments from operators to the boroughs would be determined by fleet size plus the proportion of trips that end in each borough. The administration agreement sets out the charges payable by the operators which include: 1. A one-off upfront charge per participating borough of: o £5,000 per full-service borough o £2,500 per ride-through borough 2. Ongoing per-vehicle per-period operator payments for each of the 13 4-week periods covering the duration of the trial. This shall be calculated using the average number of escooters made available to rent throughout the preceding review period across the trial area, multiplied by a tiered per vehicle charge dependent on the number of e-scooters made available to rent by the operator as set out below: Average number of vehicles made available over the review period Charge per vehicle to that tier 0 – 2200 £5.50 per vehicle 2201 – 4400 £6.50 per vehicle 4401 + £7.50 per vehicle

Here you go. LSBU High Street Report - Lordship Lane High Street (2).pdf

I think this is the problem - councils are controlling the rollout of these "trials" and there is clearly money/revenue being generated by someone and councils have been happy to allow the problem to get to this point - they're all chasing the potential revenue stream. Whomever decided to not have any co-ordinated, centralised approach to this and let councils do what they want really needs to question their decision-making process. We now have a closing the stable door after the horse has bolted situation which is going to be very challenging to resolve. Now councils want to force e-bike companies to pen their bikes because constituents hate the mess but this is not the business model the e-bike companies need to get an ROI (and there is a huge amount of investment money going in to try and win exclusivity and I think Lime have suggested that they need exclusivity). The vast majority of journeys on these bikes are first or last mile journeys so the model is based on find a bike on your road and use them to get to your railway or tube station instead of walking or getting the bus. If councils insist on penning them then people may not bother to use them so now the argument is raging as councils said "tidy up your mess" and e-bike companies said "well we need stations everywhere" - (I think I read their addressable market sweetspot they need to get to is a bike within a one minute walk of everyone) and councils have said "that may not be possible".

Careful DKHB - you're the one who started the illegal plates discussion that then turned into (somehow only Snowy knows how) to the not taxed monster truck. I found that report from Southwark on Lordship Lane shoppers. It's from 2015 and showed that 22% of those surveyed had driven to Lordship Lane (37% had walked and 31% got the bus and those were the two highest) 29% came from SE22 17% SE15 11% SE12 5% SE5 And then the rest from boroughs much further afield (that the report author commented on because it was surprising that it had such a pull) Not to mention the problems with flooding which clearly don't warrant any $ from Southwark because it's not Dulwich Village....

Snowy - I am point scoring about people using incorrect facts for point scoring. Like you just did. 😉 The vehicle is both taxed and has a valid MOT which I believe makes your post far more Alan Partridge than mine... Honestly a little bit of research goes a long way.... But thank you so much for validating my point.

The statutory consultation website is utterly unnavigable which probably means the council gets fewer responses and this probably helps their cause. Amazing that during the initial consultation they publicise and make it easy to give feedback yet in the statutory one it is anything but user-friendly - we got a letter pushed through our letterbox telling you you have until Oct 3rd to respond. I would love to know how the overwhelmingly negative views of constituents in the first consultation are considered in this one - I suspect they may be ignored. https://consultation.appyway.com/southwark/order/6e28e047-80e7-4bf1-bb97-00bce239c6e9 I would suggest that anyone who lives in the area and feels strongly about this responds and encourages their neighbours to do so again - if constituents again say we don't need this or want this you have to hope the council might consider the consequences. If anyone from One Dulwich reads this it might be good to send a missive to encourage others to respond.

Well Dulwich Roads refers to the vehicle as "taking up residence" and "appearing in the same places many days in a row" which is clearly trying to project that someone owns this vehicle (they often use such language when they see a vehicle they disapprove of) which is designed to play into the "ludicrously large vehicles clogging up our roads" narrative. And you used it as an example of long-term car storage by posting this followed by the Dulwich Roads post: So rather than me missing the point I think both you and Dulwich Roads (who often post without thinking or researching as well) have tried to make a point without knowing the full facts. They do this all the time - never let the truth get in the way of a good story is their modus operandi on pretty much everything they post and they never correct anything when the truth emerges, happy to leave their "loose" interpretation of fact on their feed no doubt happy in the knowledge that they have "spun" the story they want their followers to believe, thus reinforcing their own ideology. There are a million reasons why that ludicrously large vehicle, that is utterly unsuitable for our roads and no doubt an absolute pig to drive, had been parked there for a couple of days - long-term car storage was probably not one of them. But I am sure our good friend Raptortruckman69 was salivating with envy given that a Raptortruck is the modern-day equivalent! 😉

Well if they are storing it there for future use let's hope no-one decides to take it or it is well secured - I suspect it's worth a few bob and there are plenty of people driving around the area looking for scrap and if they see if I bet it will go.

BBC News - E-bike rage in the borough that's had enough - and how it might be solved https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly9jqd5765o

Interesting that Southwark is lauding the amount of money they are investing in EV charging points....has the penny finally dropped for them? They spent years fighting anything on 4 wheels but now seem to be far more embracing of them.

You've got to hope it's being reused...it wasn't put in that long ago. The way it has been tossed with the rest of the rubbish suggests it is being thrown out. Very, very bad look for the council if it is (especially given the noise they made about the reuse of the playground furniture installed there in the first lymp of tax payers' money invested in Dulwich Square). P.S. When was the photo of the bench taken and was it in front of the hairdressers as if it was, it doesn't seem to be there now? P.P.S ignore that as having looked at the photo it isn't in front of the hairdressers - there are similar pallets and white bags out front of the hairdressers.

And please, please, please, please if your little cherubs do cycle on the pavement don't teach them to vigorously ring their bell to alert people to "get out of my way" as they cycle up behind them. Teach them that the person in front of them has the right of way and it's their job to navigate around them and not the responsibility of the pedestrian to move out of their way! And if the pedestrian does move out of their way a thank you goes a long way to ensure cyclist and pedestrian entente cordiale!

And Madrid... https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/sep/05/madrid-moves-to-ban-app-rented-e-scooters-over-safety-concerns

https://inews.co.uk/news/private-school-parents-attack-labour-vat-closure-3256850

A quick search revealed that that monster truck is in fact a rental vehicle and not someone's over-sized family wheels...no doubt much to the disappointment of Dulwich Roads... https://www.bookaclassic.co.uk/ford-f150-truck-london/

There was a survey of shopping habits of Lordship Lane some years ago, produced by Southwark Council, and it focussed on where people came from to shop there. I will see if I can find it as I think car was quite high as a lot of visitors came from neighbouring (and those further afield) boroughs.

Was it a concession given during the original CPZ discussion as I think you are right, many spaces are taken by the business owners during working hours? They were very vocal against the measures.

Except the ones like the police conducted at Bank junction due to the continual problems posed by bad cycling.....how many cyclists got PCNs.....? No cycling on the pavement is a nuisance and increases risk for pedestrians. Any ammunition given to those who oppose cycling on pavements is down to...well, cycling on pavements....which is not allowed and increases risk for pedestrians.... It's not cyclists it's bad cyclists we are angry at. Just as we are angry at bad drivers. But the difference is we don't try to defend bad driving and offer "yeah, but" excuses....

DKHB you got me! Congrats, you win a prize. I got that wrong and I stand corrected...there you see, admitting you got something wrong doesn't hurt and can be quite therapeutic...perhaps some of you and the council should try it! Bottom line remains the council chooses to spend millions of tax payers money on Dulwich Square yet Lordship Lane pavements are in a terrible state of repair and are often flooded. Perhaps Cllr Leeming can assure you the pavement on Lordship Lane is perfect and never floods and you can come on here and tell us you have proof all is good! P.S. is that a picture of Cllr McAsh and his grand CPZ plan per chance?

Especially when it comes to the council and their agenda and gaining constituent consensus. They always put self-interest ahead of their constituents.

Ha ha...you just can't help yourself can you! In one breath you are urging people to end the culture wars and by the end of your post you're continuing to wage one....can you not see the irony there?

There are probably so few threads discussing this because every thread that, for example this one, says there is an increasing problem for pedestrians being caused by cyclists gets hijacked by someone from the pro-cycle lobby saying...but cars kills more people than bikes do. Which is exactly what you have just done - again. Thank you!