Earl Aelfheah

If people are using bikes instead of a car or the bus then it’s a win. If they’re using them exclusively in place of walking it could be a (small) negative. That is almost certainly not how they’re being used though. By 2023 there were already 1 million car journeys that had been avoided. You’re trying to pretend that no one walks anymore, but are choosing to pay three quid every time they leave the house based on nothing. It seems incredibly unlikely. As usual you also assume that there are a fixed number of (purely essential) journeys and people just switch one mode for another. This isn’t how it works. I may decide not to go meet a mate for a quick pint if I’m short on time, or can’t be bothered to get a bus / walk. But could make a different choice if there is a quick and convenient (and fun) way to get there. I suspect a large number of lime journeys are actually new journeys / the result of induced demand as well as switches. Which tallies with those Lime users saying they’ve generally become more active as a result of using them. What we do know, and don’t need to speculate about, is that people are regularly driving extremely short distances and yet apparently you do not consider that any sort of problem at all. So cycling a journey one might otherwise not have made, may have used a bus or car for, or perhaps walked, is a concern. But driving a journey one might have otherwise walked is not? I think everyone can see how disingenuous this is. So you’re suggesting that 35% of car journeys (‘any mode’) are actually under 1 km? Is that better?

No. It is very likely that many of the journeys are replacing cars and buses, some walking (although the cost makes me doubt this is significant, as you’re unlikely to pay a few quid for a journey easily walked), and many will be entirely new journeys as a result of induced demand. This would tally with those saying they’re generally more active as a result of using Lime bikes. Again, why do you think people cycling short distances instead of driving, taking the bus, or walking is a problem, but have nothing to say about the huge number of people regularly using a car to travel less than 2km? Explain that please.

I think most people pay full council tax, regardless of their car owning status. They said: I took the ‘without discounts’ to imply that they should get discounts. Otherwise I don’t understand the reference to discounts. Especially when followed with complaints that the council “makes a profit from ttaxing motorists“, and; “They (the council) are awash with cash they have extracted from car owners.” If I’ve misunderstood then I apologise, but I ask again, what taxes are the council raising on motorists? Are they paying any more council tax than non-drivers? If not, what is the point? It certainly sounds like they think council tax payers owe drivers something. But by all means quote the whole post and tell me how you’ve understood it, if you think I’m being unfair.

It's not common sense. It's your usual mental gymnastics. For someone who opposes all active travel measures, all attempts to get people out of private motor vehicles and travelling by foot, bike or public transport, you're now concerned that e-bikes may 'only' have discouraged a million or so car journeys a couple of years into operation? To say that this seems disingenuous is being kind. If you are worried that some trips are being cycled, which could be walked, wait until you find out the percentage of car journeys in London that are under 2km. You're going to absolutely go off on one!* *it's 35%

They're also replacing car journeys, which are by far the most damaging form of transport; They’d already avoided around 1 million motor vehicle trips by 2023. Why do you not worry about the amount of journeys which could be walked that are undertaken by car? Do you think that's perhaps a bigger issue? Like I say, I suspect that the popularity of hire bikes is increasing the total amount of active travel. if you read that report, those who have used Lime also say that it's increased their overall activity levels. It's amazing how you can claim to be 'concerned' that Lime bikes supress active travel, but oppose any attempt to reduce the amount of people using cars for short journeys.

What 'problem'? Based on their data (it's from 2023 - at which point ridership was increasing by around 10% a month, so will be significantly higher now), the service had already helped avoid about 1 million motor vehicle trips (excluding public transport) in London since launch. That over 2.6 million fewer motor vehicle km (excluding public transport) travelled between Lime e-bikes launch and 2023 when the report was published (equivalent to London to Paris and back 3,000 times). Also, whilst there is a concept of 'Last mile transport' this just refers to transport used to start or finish your journey, rather than undertake the journey in it's entirety. It's a catch all / short hand for 'local journeys that connect you to major public transport hubs' (i.e. train and tube stations). It's not meant to reflect an actual, average distance. And this is only one way Lime bikes are used. Like I say, I use them for getting to Brixton tube. This is exactly the type of thing 'last mile transport' is intended for. Brixton is not one mile away, and I wouldn't have previously walked.

Well, that is a recognised term, but I did explain in quite a detailed way what I meant providing multiple examples. I think it's clear. 'Unintended consequences' doesn't really have the same meaning, (an externality is a cost or benefit that is caused by one party but financially incurred or received by another). ...but the point is not to bash motorists, simply to challenge the idea that they deserve some sort of thanks / special treatment from council tax payers - a view which is rather entitled in my opinion.

Not really. To say that car owners ‘pay council tax at the full rate without discounts', suggests that a discount should be given does it not - either on parking, or their council tax (the wording suggest the latter to me)? I would like to know what additional money car owners (I am one), pay in council tax, over those without a car? It sounds to me as though CPR Dave thinks the council / local tax payers owe car drivers something. I'd point you to the bit in my post above, re. the negative externalities of motor vehicles.

Some might be, for sure. Probably a greater proportion replace bus journeys or cab rides. I will fairly regularly jump on a lime bike to / from Brixton for example, where previously I may have called a cab or got someone to drop me off in the car. If you’re asking me to guess, I would say that the proliferation of electric bikes has likely increased the total amount of ‘active travel’ happening in London. Lime's own research (so treat with caution), suggests around 8% of journeys replace one that might otherwise have been undertaken by car. If correct that would represent a significant amount of car miles saved: https://cdn.li.me/content/uploads/Lime-in-London-final-report-2-min.pdf ...it's also worth noting that people like them, find them significantly more convenient than the alternatives - Arguments that apparently hold weight when applied to cars, but don't for any other form of transport?

Private motor vehicles contribute to air pollution, (leading to respiratory and cardiovascular problems, especially in urban areas) and are major contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. Congestion from car travel has major economic costs. Inactivity, impacts physical and mental health impacting our public health services. Motor vehicles kill and seriously injure 1,000's every year. Environments built around the car, lead to greater social isolation, especially impacting children, who tend to spend more time 'trapped' inside causing a host of public health issues. Most of the costs of these things are externalised (i.e. born by others), whilst the benefits are mostly accrued by the motorist. Most households in our borough don't have access to a car, and yet I would guess around 80% of our public space is given over to private motorists, a significant amount of it for the storage of cars which are stationary around 90% of the time. There is a huge opportunity cost to this loss of public space / amenity. Yet we have people arguing for a discount on their council tax if they drive around everywhere? Does this not seem a little entitled? Perhaps e-scooters are not more active, but normal scooters and e-bikes, and push bikes, are clearly more active than siting in a car. Both scooters and e-bikes have fewer negative externalities than a motor car (they take up less room, contribute less to congestion and pollution, to respiratory and cardiovascular problems, to the deaths and serious injury of others etc).

I'm over 40 and quite regularly use Lime bikes. But so what if it is younger people using them in the main? They do also have to get about. Eh? What money do you pay to the Council as a car owner specifically? Why should car owners get a discount on their council tax?

I finally tried Chilli & Garlic - really good and amazing value. Highly recommend.

No. Defence has nothing to do with local councils. Councils in London (and across the UK) have a legal duty to maintain public roads and footpaths to ensure they are safe for use, including for pedestrians and cyclists. There is also a duty on London boroughs to promote public health and sustainable travel. This duty is reinforced by legislation like the Health and Social Care Act 2012 TfL and other organizations provide funding and support for boroughs to implement active travel projects. So one very much is their business, the other obviously, is not.

It's interesting (and instructive) that people think that allocating vast amounts of space to private motor vehicles for both transport and storage is not a choice. But that (much smaller) allocations of space for pedestrians and those travelling on bicycle, is a choice. Both are a choice and both involve trade offs. To suggest that it's not the role of government to think about it, betrays an assumption that the dominance of most public spaces by motor vehicles is simply the 'natural order'. It is not. ...and a reminder that the majority of households in our borough don't own / have access to a car. I think it's perfectly right for our representatives to allocate a greater proportion of space to people getting around by foot, bike and bus.

It's a legitimate policy aim. There is a social cost to private car transport and to inactivity, the cost of which is borne by the public purse. Also, public bodies have responsibility for maintaining roads, for transport, infrastructure and the public realm. That means deciding how public space is allocated, maintained and improved.

I think we can all agree that Lambeth failed to follow a lawful consultation process. The fact that you see all and any attempts to improve road safety, reduce traffic, pollution and increase active travel as part of a single cause / project is a big part of the problem. This scheme and the way the consultation has been undertaken tells us nothing about the many successful schemes elsewhere, or ULEZ, or bus lanes (which help move people more efficiently), or the increase in bike lanes (which have led to a huge increase in the numbers commuting into central London by bike), or any of the other broad range of things you regularly rail against.

Have you managed to identify the mystery root?

A few years ago I think

Wow, this thread is really bad tempered. Does any conversation about local roads always have to return to a small change to road layout at the junction of Calton avenue made half a decade ago? There are many, many threads on that already for the obsessives and conspiracy theorists. I don't like the idea of having right turns onto those two roads (I agree it would be dangerous), but it's interesting that people are objecting on the ground that it might increase traffic on 'their street', whilst also moaning that there has been 'displacement' from others. Seems a bit of a nimby argument imo. Malumbu is correct about 20mph. In roads with heavy traffic, slowing down improves traffic flow. This is why we have variable speed limits on motorways, lowering speeds when traffic starts building up, it helps get things moving again. The AI summary actually explains the reasons for this very well.

It's just the small section of road between scylla and Nunhead Lane from memory The bit outside the Angel Oak pub

That rubbish is a health and safety issue. It could easily fall on someone walking underneath it.

A town square would be nice. Perhaps we could pedestrianise North cross Road and create a square at the junction of Lordship Lane. Can't imagine there would be any objections / controversy. This is probably true, but the issue is not so much the level of the rent, but the degree to which it is sustainable in the context of the local market. The Landlords locally do seem to have squeezed rents to the point where places can no longer survive in many cases. Think the furore was largely manufactured tbf.

James McAsh is favourite to replace him?!

Romeo Jones isn't by the junction. It's opposite Gail's which is constantly packed. It's sad that it's closed, but not sure one can blame a 'drop in footfall' caused by the changes to road layout introduced half a decade ago. A lot of new businesses have opened in the last few years, yes, some of them chains. The trend for chains is very unlikely to be related to reduced footfall though (often chains set up where footfall is highest, something they will research). It's to do with wider consumer trends and as you say, increasing rents / business rates / costs. Honestly, I can't remember the last time I went into Romeo Jones, but it was not because I couldn't cut through calton avenue to get there by car, saving maybe 2 mins; did many of their customers really arrive by car and in a terrible hurry - parking where?.

I may have missed it, but I don't think anyone has made that argument have they? I don't know, but suspect they've figured the costs of cancelling at this late stage are greater than the costs of losing another legal challenge. I agree that if so, it's putting commercial considerations over legal process.