Rockets

Have we seen the results of the council's "consultation" on the CPZs or is it still running?

Bottom-line is that the catalyst for the electrification of car models is not being driven, pardon the pun, by bans on sales of petrol and diesel cars and climate change agendas but by the very real threat posed to EU car manufacturers, and those who sell cars in Europe, by their Chinese counterparts and brands like Tesla - who embraced EVs in a way the incumbents didn't.

The problem is this has now become THE political hot potato and this was inevitable - it's a ludicrous decision but the Tories are clutching at whatever they can. Travel, and particularly that done by car, is going to become a major, if not the major, manifesto item for all parties whether they want it or not - and all of this was born in the Uxbridge by-election and the mess it created for Sadiq and Keir. I know there is another thread on 20mph in Wales but those types of decisions by Labour administrations will now become part of the election narrative. I was recently travelling along the elevated section of the Westway and that is now 20mph - which is utterly ludicrous but a very real example to everyone about what happens when ideology gets in the way of pragmatism - and this stuff sticks, which is why the Tories are making such a huge issue about motoring. They have clearly done their research that if you want to try and get people onside show them you are the champion for the driver - it will probably win you votes (at a time when they are desperate for any votes at all) and it puts Labour in a challenging position - as Labour found to theirs, and our, cost in 2019 the Islington Corbynites are not at all reflective of the lives or views of the majority and in most parts of the country people rely on their cars far more than us Londoners do.

And that does seem to be a key point that many, like megalaki84 fail to acknowledge. This overly-simplistic mantra of "you don't need a car" may apply to those saying it but doesn't necessarily apply those they are saying it to. Given a car may be the most, or second most, expensive purchase someone ever makes you can be pretty sure that they definitely need one - people don't make that sort of outlay without determining whether they need it or not.

DKHB - do you expect every group who tries to have a voice in local debates to publish their funding and membership details? Are you asking the same of Mums for Lungs or Clean Air Dulwich? And to be fair...your definition of sealioning could well be applied to many of those who support the measures too! 😉

Similar experience for me. Only word of advice is to make sure everything is clearly listed when you make the booking and check their guidance on what you can and can't put outside.

The traffic "evaporated" apparently.......and then condensed again onto roads like the South Circular, Croxted and East Dulwich Grove......the "main roads are built for it" was the nonsense narrative the council tried to peddle when their promise of less traffic for all never materialised.

If your cat is like our cat then I am sure it will go and sit itself on the bench next to the barbed wire just to troll your neighbour! 😉

Yes you have to admit that when you hear the likes of Cllr Leeming spouting forth this nonsense you know full well that the hole they have dug themselves is so deep that they have to abandon the socialist ideology that they purport to champion.

Between strike days and engineering works there is very little weekend service at the moment.

At least they responded, ask the council for anything in relation to LTNs or CPZs and they ignore you...

One Dulwich have sent their latest update. One Dulwich Campaign Update | 9 Sep What Southwark is now saying about the Dulwich LTNs As you know, we met Cllr James McAsh (who took over from Cllr Catherine Rose as the Council’s decision-maker on LTNs) in June, and raised our continuing concerns about missing data, traffic displacement, delays to buses, the impact on local shops and businesses, and discrimination against people with disabilities. Cllr McAsh said he would respond within two months, and we received his reply on 24 August. Basically, he hasn’t budged an inch. It seems more important to him to avoid disagreeing with his predecessor’s decision than to address the very real problems that these LTNs are causing in the Dulwich area. There are three key revelations from Cllr McAsh summarised in three reports on our website: 1) traffic count data - the baseline data is “not a perfect comparison” with post-LTN data, so it’s impossible to tell if the LTNs have reduced or increased traffic; 2) air quality data cannot be reliably linked to specific local interventions, so it’s impossible to tell if the LTNs have improved or worsened air quality; 3) discrimination continues against those who have disabilities, or who are frail or housebound (and all those who care for them), as the Dulwich Village junction remains closed 24/7 all but emergency vehicles. We have written to Cllr McAsh asking why he has so singularly failed to respond to the issues we raised in our meeting. We will now pass all this information on to the Prime Minister’s review of LTNs. Separately, we are seeking advice about how the Council’s failure to take into account the needs of those with disabilities can be challenged. (Please get in touch if you have any expertise or experience in Public Law and can help with this.) Please also encourage friends, family and neighbours to join us. We are continuing to campaign because there is no evidence at all that the Dulwich LTNs are meeting the Council’s aims to reduce traffic, make our air cleaner, increase active travel or improve road safety. The Council is not looking after the needs of the Dulwich community. Best wishes, The One Dulwich Team

Earl - your statement on not adding pollution is a complete fallacy as they will create pollution when they are created. This narrative we hear about "pollution-free" solutions is utter nonsense as anything that is made (like these bike hangars) will have a detrimental environmental impact. It's like when people say Lime bikes are pollution free...well expect for when they were made or when they were charged or when you brake or accelerate using the motor. Of course, it's less than a car belching out fumes but don't kid yourself that the infrastructure built to support your POV "don't add pollution". The overall argument of people trying to justify CPZs on the basis of the space cars take on the public realm is as flawed as it is blinkered as it is contradictory. But if people want to go down that route good luck to them but it only leads to a contradictory, hypocritical cul-de-sac.

Malumbu - nor is on-street parking - what point are you trying to make? At every turn you seem to be undermining, rather than supporting, the original ludicrous assertion about trying to justify charging people to use public roads to park. It's not pro-car or anti-bike - rather it's demonstrating the foolishness and flaws in the original, not well thought-out or constructed argument posited by the two-time poster @DesignThinking (see below)......come on admit it, which one of you created that account after buying and having a stab at Adobe Illustrator.....;-) I think Design Thinking should be thinking more about their designs....;-) By that measure would a cycle hoop be worth what, about £15,000 - £20,000? Don't tell the council as they will want to charge for them as well!!!

Mr Chicken this comes down to a mix of council incompetence, ideological blinkeredness and a failure to admit they can get anything wrong - those things are very dangerous when combined and can probably explain why we are where we are. But I do love the idea of an ironic implementation! 😉

No Malumbu, you're wrong. Cyclists do not have to pay to use the council provided cycle racks to store their bikes - the cycle hangars managed by a private contractor on behalf of the council are the paid-for ones. And haven't you just contradicted Earl's position by now suggesting car owners should be funding free storage for cyclists? You're position seems a bit confused and contradictory - you says it's not ok for people to park their cars for free ("funded by the taxpayer"), however it is ok for people to park their bikes or use cycle lanes for free funded by the tax-payer but your ultimate goal is for drivers to fund cyclists parking for free. Hmmmm.....I think you argument is falling apart at the seams... This isn't anti-cycling it's pointing out the bleedingly obvious flaw in the original "free storage for cars is unfair" narrative.

No it failed because it caused such heavy congestion on surrounding roads that the local MP had to intervene, at the behest of the emergency services, because the council were ignoring their pleas that response times were being massively impacted. A combination of bad planning, bad design, bad implementation and a blinkered self-serving determination to not alter the design come hell or highwater- even when lives were at risk. Oh my... It's a joke Malumbu....using a cultural reference to a regular sketch from the Harry Enfield Television Programme called The Scousers....;-)

Earl, by the same measure then I presume you don't think that everyone should pay for cycle lane infrastructure on public land or use the cycle securing racks for free?

And led Will Norman to have to intervene to get some control and calm things down a bit.

And, if I am not mistaken, the TFL report in question said that bus delays were being caused by congestion caused by the Dulwich LTNs....it was that that sent the councillors into a rage....

Ha ha Park your prejudices....boom boom...did you see what you did there? 😉 Westminster leads in terms of numbers in London (which came as some surprise) but it is interesting that those boroughs that have areas in the most central parts of London perform better than those that don't. Do you have any idea why that might be, given there is more reliance on cars the further you go out would expect the reverse to be in play? Or is there something else perhaps that we are missing in terms of the underlying data? There are 56,000+ registered cars in Southwark so some way to go don't you think? Where we live in Dulwich there are very few charging points and we have councillors who say, publicly, that EVs are not the answer and should be discouraged - which doesn't fill anyone with confidence that they are going to try and help accelerate EV rollout. Sorry if this has triggered you but I thought it was a sensible idea to encourage the council to use money from the fines and CPZ charges to reinvest it in encouraging people to take up EVs. And remember this was an idea that came to me after I saw how many more houses now have EV charging points along Friern Road and made me wonder why the council was not doing more to help facilitate the transition for on-street parking in the area.

So what are the council doing to help facilitate people moving to EVs...as that will clearly be the only option for a new car in 6.5 years? Not sure about anyone else but I am not seeing an increase in charging points across the area (I do on private driveways but nothing on the roads). Seems like a huge missed opportunity to me.

Mr Chicken - so glad it is entertaining you! I think it is often you that is trying to hound people off the thread with your aggressive, accusatory and angry contributions. As I was saying a pretty obvious solution - we hear time and time again from the council that LTNs, CPZs etc are all here to make air quality better but they do virtually nothing to help the transition to electric vehicles. They should be asked why not - it seems to me this is a massive missed opportunity for them. And Mr Chicken, roads are getting increasingly congested (and remember car ownership has been declining in London steadily for some time before any interventions) because councils are closing more and more roads to through traffic and forcing buses and other vehicles to share less and less road space as they build more and more and bigger and bigger cycle lanes, and despite claiming the opportunity for a 10 fold increase in cyclists post Covid cycling in London has increased by just 11%.

It's all about the revenue....

Surely encouraging, and helping facilitate, people to go electric should be a priority for the council if their goal really is to reduce emmissions? It's clear car ownership in Dulwich is high for a number of reasons (notably age of the population- at both ends - more families and low PTAL scores) and it will always be that way so rather than trying to convince people they don't need cars maybe embrace a form of car that reduces emissions. Seems pretty obvious.