Melbourne Grove South CPZ consultation

[alice]

Would it be reasonable to ask that plain language is used eg unintended consequences rather than externalities.  

[Earl Aelfheah]

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). 

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

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).

...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.

Edited Monday at 14:49 by Earl Aelfheah

[malumbu]

1 hour ago, LordshipPain said:

Bad faith nonsense from someone that doesn't even live here. Go away and focus on your own neighbourhood.

What a nasty post.  Do you believe in censorship?  That's the way it reads to me.  I am an expert on transport issues, you may not agree with me but that is no reason to just dismiss me.  

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

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

If even Lime are claiming only 8% of their journeys are replacing cars then the problem is probably worse than it appears. So, by that measure, do we presume that around 92% of their journeys are replacing walking and public transport? Given most suggest Lime is being used for first and last mile journeys to and from public transport and less than a mile then it suggests a lot are replacing walking. I cannot find any data from Lime on average journey length and that suggests to me that a large proportion may be very walkable. If Lime journeys are replacing more environmentally friendly ways of travelling then they are contributing to the problem not solving it.

[Earl Aelfheah]

41 minutes ago, Rockets said:

If even Lime are claiming only 8% of their journeys are replacing cars then the problem is probably worse than it appears

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.

Edited Monday at 15:50 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

7 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

What 'problem'? 

That Lime bikes are increasingly replacing walking - and that is not a good thing as walking is by far the most environmentally friendly and least damaging of all modes of travel. This narrative that Lime bikes are somehow a great environmentally friendly form of travel is only true if they are replacing a more damaging form of travel (cars) - so every Lime bike that replaces walking is actually bad for the environment and there's probably a case to say that a Lime bike in lieu of public transport is also more harmful.

[Earl Aelfheah]

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.

Edited Monday at 15:47 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

15 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

They're also replacing car journeys, which are by far the most damaging form of transport; Around a 1 million motor vehicle trips in 2023.

@Earl Aelfheah by  Lime's own admission only 8% which is probably more than offset if the other 92% are replacing walking or public transport. This is just common-sense.

Lime bikes are not environmentally friendly if they are not replacing more damaging journeys and their usage patterns suggest they are, in a large part, replacing walking.

[Earl Aelfheah]

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%

Edited Monday at 15:56 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

It is common sense. If Lime can only claim 8% of their journeys are replacing car journeys then the remainder are replacing other forms of journeys - most likely walking (especially given the higher density of Lime bike journeys being done closer to the city centre where car journeys are naturally much lower anyway). 

I really think Lime bikes are having a negative environmental and social impact on cities as they are replacing walking (which is by far the best form of active travel) and encouraging a large number of users to be lazy. Nothing you seem to be suggesting convinces me otherwise. In Central London, and even as far out as Dulwich, walking has always been the preferred mode of travel for short journeys (what was the figure for Dulwich in the 2018 Transport Report - something around 65% - Southwark has removed the report).

If Lime were replacing a higher percentage of car journeys then the outlook would be much better. This is always the risk of such schemes, that the way people use them actually contributes to the very problem it is trying to help.

Very few people in London were using first and last mile journeys in a car (even the Melbourne Grove closure lobbyists tried to convince us the problem was people driving in from Kent! ;-))

 

 

[Spartacus]

Absolutely doesn't Earl

They are pointing out that they pay full council tax 

No where are they saying they should have a discount 

Thats all in your head trying to demonise a poster to suit ypur agenda there 

 

I read you so called negatives, and the one I loved most was "Congestion from car travel has major economic costs."

Replace that with loss of economic growth from the sales of new cars , parts   services and associated taxes , should car ownership be reduced to suit the agenda you promote, would be far more costly to the country than the congestion costs you mention. 

Edited Monday at 16:49 by Spartacus

[malumbu]

Consumerism.  Buy buy buy.  Unnecessary energy and raw material use.  Fast fashion.  Single use products.

Thankfully most expensive consumer goods are far more reliable than the last century.  Oddly enough globalisation has helped, although the danger of China dominating is a worry 

This whole concept that we have to increase our spending on consumer goods goods to improve our quality of life is an odd one.  Meanwhile the masses want cheaper food.  If there was ever a sector where the country could benefit from increasing quality this one is it.  Noting if course that not all have the resources to do this, but I wonder how many prioritise consumer goods over essentials 

Anyway a simplistic view and a lounge conversation.

And yes, congestion does have an economic costs.

@Spartacus

Here's some light reading

https://research.library.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1162&context=environ_2015#:~:text=Annual increases in the consumption,energy use%2C and ecosystem collapse.

@first mate

I stopped myself posting the question on whether the threat of war is good for growth.  I'll return the subject of the thread, but found it bizarre to use consumerism as an argument against CPZs.

Edited Monday at 17:30 by malumbu

[first mate]

Polite request to stay on topic, please. This thread is about the MGS CPZ.

To an answer an earlier poster, I found info buried away on Southwark website and cannot quite remember how I got there. If I can get to it again, I will try to post, but there is definitely a report out there with the details I have flagged, CPZ, Melbourne Grove, Chesterfield and Colwell slated to start October 2025, following statutory consultation- whether this means there is still a chance to stop it I am not clear.

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, Spartacus said:

They are pointing out that they pay full council tax 

No where are they saying they should have a discount 

I think most people pay full council tax, regardless of their car owning status. They said:

On 07/06/2025 at 16:15, CPR Dave said:

Most of us who own cars also pay council tax at the full rate without discounts.

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.

Edited Monday at 18:15 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

Can we stay on thread, please. This is about MGS CPZ.

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

If Lime can only claim 8% of their journeys are replacing car journeys then the remainder are replacing other forms of journeys - most likely walking

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.

Edited Monday at 18:00 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

Earl, are you in favour of MGS CPZ, especially the council rationale that it is should be imposed  to balance the needs of shoppers visiting in cars against those of residents?

Edited Monday at 17:39 by first mate

[Rockets]

46 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

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.

@Earl Aelfheah I am not sure why you are struggling to understand this. If people are using Lime bikes for short distances instead of driving or being driven then that is a win for the environment. If people are using Lime bikes for short distances instead of walking or taking the bus then that is a loss for the environment - just because you are on two-wheels on a Lime bike doesn't mean you are immune to having an environmental footprint - have you seen the thousands of Lime bikes in and outside the warehouse near South Bermondsey station (have a look the next time you are on the train to London Bridge) or the fleets of "juicers bombing around London replacing the rechargeable batteries?

Lime stated in 2023 that their research suggested that 8% of Lime bike users said they would have used a private vehicle, taxi, private hire, or car clubs if Lime e-bikes were not available. Lime also said that this would likely  increase if further expansion to the outer boroughs was allowed as car use is higher in those areas - which very much suggests this is at saturation point without that expansion - to be fair the document that you shared was a Lime lobbying for more from TFL/Mayor's office research piece. If that 8% figure is accurate then Lime are taking journeys from walking and public transport.

P.S. Did you know that your 35% stat of car journeys in London under 2km is selectively plucked from a 2011/12 TFL report comparing car usages across ALL London boroughs (the report stated that Bexley had the highest car use and Islington the least). More up to date data from TFL (2023) said that 35% of all trips in London are now under 1km (by any mode) and that was the highest % group so you might want to look for a more accurate and up-to-date stat because I am not sure how many of those journeys are now by car but I suspect it is nowhere near the 35% under 2km you claim.

[malumbu]

14 hours ago, tiddles said:

Malumbo - Umm no, I didn’t say or suggest any of those things. I said that the council is trying to create parking pressure so as to introduce blankets CpZ. There is no need for 3 bike bays within steps of each other. I find it amusing  that you cannot tolerate any (often justified)whisper of critism of the council. BTW I frequently use lime bikes and am over 60. 

Ummh, not sure where you have got this comment about me and Southwark,  I support actions by local authorities to discourage driving and promote active travel and public transport.  Driving can be a difficult habit to break, I've been involved in the past indirectly on behaviour change.  This is achieved through (a) good citizenship, (b) financial measures such as ULEZ and the congestion charge (and I would like fuel duty to be raised to previous levels taking into account inflation) (c) hard measures such as road restrictions   (d) incentives

There has been good work by government in the 90s and 00s but since the Supreme Court ordered the government to sort out air quality ASAP in 2015, post Covid and particularly post Uxbridge, central government has abdicated much of the responsibility leaving this to local authorities.

(a) generally doesn't work as I consider is demonstrated by OneDulwich, and by the Lambeth outcome.  Here opponents, in this case LTNs, say they believe in addressing climate change and poor air quality, yet it seems to me that many do not want the perceived inconvenience of restrictions on driving, but do not have alternative proposals bar kicking issues into the grass through eternal consultation.  Yes, I do understand that not everyone objecting drives/owns a car.

(d) the Heathrow study was very disappointing, a number of simple measures and incentives such as car sharing for the commute failed to have a significant impact.

Increased costs (b) has a limited impact due to inelasticity of demand, there is not a straight forward response to raising costs.

Leaving hard measures.  (c).

What is really disappointing is that the first three posts after my one responding to you, just dissed measures to support active travel.   @Earl Aelfheah  thanks for addressing some of the mistruths.

I don't have in depth knowledge of Melbourne Road and I'm interested in the big picture rather than specifics.  I can't even remember whether the main concern is that residents will have to have permits or shoppers may have to pay for parking, I thought the detail wasn't out yet.

I like much of what our local authorities have done to promote cycling, I expect about three quarters of my cycling is in Southwark, both commuting, for work and for pleasure.  But  the changes to Brenchley Gardens are awful, it was already a dangerous road already due to some of the speeds of some drivers either side of the speed camera, the changes did not address this and worse there is no room for a driver to pass a cyclist at a safe distance when there is traffic in both directions.

@tiddles  Why did you like Lordship's nasty post?  Toxic, and doesn't help reasonable/rational debate.

[first mate]

2 minutes ago, malumbu said:

I don't have in depth knowledge of Melbourne Road and I'm interested in the big picture rather than specifics.  I can't even remember whether the main concern is that residents will have to have permits or shoppers may have to pay for parking, I thought the detail wasn't out yet.

Fair enough, but this thread is about a very specific CPZ, perhaps start the 'wider debate' on another thread?

To reiterate: the detail on this latest CPZ is out in a report on the consultation. The stated aim is to initiate the CPZ on MGS, Chesterfield and Colwell, in October. First it has to go to 'statutory consultation'. The recent consultation returned a majority of residents against CPZ in the proposed area.

Part of the rationale for this specific CPZ was that it was necessary to balance the needs of shoppers visiting in cars against those of residents- make of that what you will.

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

If people are using Lime bikes for short distances instead of driving or being driven then that is a win for the environment. If people are using Lime bikes for short distances instead of walking or taking the bus then that is a loss for the environment

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.

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

More up to date data from TFL (2023) said that 35% of all trips in London are now under 1km (by any mode)

So you’re suggesting that 35% of car journeys (‘any mode’) are actually under 1 km? Is that better?

Edited Monday at 20:01 by Earl Aelfheah

[Penguin68]

2 hours ago, malumbu said:

And yes, congestion does have an economic costs.

And yet, as I recall, when I complained of very long duration road works, when the actual lapsed time of working was far shorter than the time of traffic disruption, you were very dismissive of the economic impact being of any import. But then, that was a council doing it, not your hated private motorist. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

It’s not just about CO2, but just for a bit of perspective Rocks as you’re suddenly concerned about the environmental impacts of transport choices:

• Car: Approximately 271 grams of CO2 per passenger-kilometer. 
   
• Bus: Around 101 grams of CO2 per passenger-kilometer. 
   
• E-bike: Around 14.8 to 22 grams of CO2 per kilometer. 
   
• Walking/Cycling: Negligible CO2 emissions

…cars and buses also contribute to local air pollution.

So any concern you have about short e-bike journeys (some of which replace private car and bus journeys), must be even greater with regards short car journeys, which only replace less polluting modes of travel. 

16 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

And yet, as I recall, when I complained of very long duration road works, when the actual lapsed time of working was far shorter than the time of traffic disruption, you were very dismissive of the economic impact being of any import. But then, that was a council doing it, not your hated private motorist. 

Could equally point out that you only have concern about it when it’s to undertake necessary maintenance, but apparently don’t consider it an issue otherwise?

Edited Monday at 20:03 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

28 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I think everyone can see how disingenuous this is.

Yup. This is supposed to be a thread about CPZ on Melbourne Grove South.

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 minute ago, first mate said:

Yup. This is supposed to be a thread about CPZ on Melbourne Grove South.

Tell that to people who wanted to make points about council tax levied on motorists ‘without discounts’ and those wanting to express concern about the environmental impact of electric bikes whilst consistently minimising the impact of car journeys / objecting to any suggestion that is a problem. If one is going to make such points, it is not reasonable to expect them to be accepted without comment or challenge.