Earl Aelfheah

@first mate - Where are the proposals for additional parking spaces on Lordship Lane please?

For what possible reason do you want to start a thread to discuss a consultation that took place half a decade ago?

I don't agree it's misleading. It's exactly what I would expect from a public relations / press office - short and punchy (lacking nuance), and spun from the most positive angle. It is not untrue however and it is accompanied with a lot of detail. And fundamentally it is a very positive picture.

A good concept, or an effective intervention?

I mean you could deflect. But why not answer the question. What are your views on ULEZ.

Ah, Ok I see what you're saying. I hadn't realised the council were proposing additional parking on Lordship Lane. Is this right? I haven't seen this - do you have any further info.

It's meant to slow traffic. Previously people caned it along that road and there were a number of serious crashes. I've seen plenty of people using that bike lane, but as already stated the bike lane wasn't the point. The point was that it was one of top 10 worst roads in the borough for speeding.

This makes no sense. You think that people are driving to Lordship lane but shunning spaces on the Lane in favour of the surrounding streets?

I was responding to this. I've said quite clearly "There are plenty of legitimate arguments you can make". But if you want to lead with the claim that a CPZ will destroy the high street be my guest.

Who would that be. Not you, of course. I don't think the press release is misleading. You don't seem to understand press releases, or external relation departments. They've literally published a full report with it, with lot's of detail. It is absolutely clear from the data that it's had a positive impact on air quality. Honestly, I do wish you would be a bit braver. It's pretty clear you're opposed to it.

Fair enough. I'm surprised as you've often said you're concerned with congestion, pollution, and with traffic slowing the buses on lordship lane. Seems slightly at odds with wanting to encourage people to drive to the shops. I'm surprised those living on Melbourne grove and surrounding streets want to encourage shoppers to use those roads for parking, but up to them ultimately.

This is such a silly comment. I've said quite clearly "There are plenty of legitimate arguments you can make", but simply pointed out that claiming a CPZ will destroy the high street is not really the best one to lead with. It's hyperbole and no one seriously believes it. One step away from 'will no one think of the children!?!?'

So to be clear, you would like to encourage people to drive to Lordship lane and to park on the residential roads just off it?

Ok. So just to be clear... you think that Southwark Council and Tfl have worked closely to 'not go the extra mile' because... they hate drivers? Or is your complaint just that the work is taking too long. Because the two are quite different and it feels like there is back pedalling going on.

It's always the innuendo. have the power of your convictions. Do you believe that ULEZ has improved air quality, or not? Would you reverse it, or are you broadly supportive of it? You have spoken about it a lot (and in terms most would consider to be critical) for someone who claims not to have a position.

You believe that tfl are conspiring with the council to deliberately prolong the work because (in Rockets words) they 'hate drivers'? Is this your position? The idea that the work is deliberately being slowed down to try and annoy drivers is literally ridiculous. It's conspiracy theory nonsense.

Perhaps not, but certainly they're implying that the works are being deliberately drawn out in order to cause disruption because they 'hate drivers'. If you believe this, then you really are lost down a rabbit hole. ...and the works are being undertaken by tfl I believe What are you talking about? The changes made on Sydenham Hill were very clearly intended to address a speeding and accident hotspot. As Snowy has said, Sydenham hill is a traffic calming plan with a cycle lane as an added benefit, not a cycle lane with traffic calming benefits. This is not a conspiracy. There were regular, high speed crashes along that stretch of road in the past.

There are local elections. I mention it, because it's on the top of the poster that was shared: As I said: "There are plenty of legitimate arguments you can make without resorting to hyperbole. I also want a thriving high street. I don't for one second believe this proposal will threaten that. I suspect no one really does." So I'm 'focussed on' (responding to) this point, because it's the one I specifically disagree with. Ultimately, I don't live on those roads and can't say what residents might want (although I know they're pretty chocka).

So what is your actual point? Do you think the ULEZ hasn't been successful, or are you just unhappy that a short press release from an external relations department has chosen to put the most positive spin it can on what are by any measure, significant improvements in air quality since 2019? If your issue is with the way external relations departments write press releases, we're probably all with you, but this isn't really an issue with the ULEZ, which is clearly a success story.

This is so boring. So anyone who doesn't oppose any new pedestrian crossing is an 'activist'? Come on. The Council may be regularly incompetent, but this crossing is not a secret ruse to cause unnecessary disruption.

Like I say, I don't feel strongly either way on this. But I think the idea that a CPZ on Melbourne Grove will destroy the high street is absolute fantasy. I wish people would just make the argument and not resort to such hyperbole. If you genuinely need a vehicle to get to work, then parking permits probably help. It's not easy to park at the moment.

You think it's going to collapse the high street? Really? BTW, I think (could be wrong - hopefully someone will know more), that shop workers can obtain business parking permits for CPZs. So it may help those who really need to travel to their place of work by car, to actually park (although I suspect the vast majority use public transport).

If you don't want a CPZ in Melbourne Grove then say so. But don't claim it's going to lead to the high street collapsing. There are plenty of legitimate arguments you can make without resorting to hyperbole. I also want a thriving high street. I don't for one second believe this proposal will threaten that. I suspect no one really does.

Think that's your own spin. They've described the improvement in air quality since 2019. The report states (not surprisingly) that you cannot directly attribute all of these improvements to the ULEZ, "however schemes and policies such as the ULEZ contribute towards accelerating these improvements". It then goes on to describe the likely impact of ULEZ, based on modelling (which is really the best you can do in comparing the current state to an alternative, potential state). The point is (as discussed above) that a whole raft of interventions by the Mayor's office have seen air quality across London improve. ULEZ is one of those and in so far as it has contributed to what amounts to a better environment for all Londoners, should be welcomed. If you think the ULEZ has not been successful, or should be reversed, just say so. Otherwise, what really are you objecting to? Do you really expect a short press release from a external relations department to downplay a success? What would you like it to say? "We've done loads to improve air quality, and air quality has improved. But perhaps it's just a really big coincidence. We certainly wouldn't want to take any credit."

But this isn't anything to do with the square. It was the same distance before the filters were put in. I'm not saying it's not an issue, but what's the link with the LTN? There is also parking directly outside the chemist, as there was before. Do you know why the council has refused to put a disabled parking bay on court lane? Seems very odd.