Rockets

Is there a diversion in place from the Goose Green end?

Going to be fun on Monday if Lordship Lane is still closed at Townley. I presume Thames Water must think they will have LL open again tomorrow - although there are a lot of big holes at Townley tonight and no-one working.

I noticed there was a diversion in place at the Plough that sent traffic heading northbound down Barry Road but at the Townley Road junction no diversion is in place - is something in place at the Goose Green end?

Completely agree. They seem to have allowed themselves to be so blinkered by their own ideology that they have lost sight of the goal.

Relevant to your claim that lithium "very much is not a fire hazard". Here is a thought, if the council is so keen on putting in place a CPZ then why don't they reinvest some of the millions they get from that and the various LTN cameras in proper electric car charging infrastructure. That is far more likely to encourage more people to EVs. This evening I wandered down an East Dulwich street and what was striking was that a large percentage of houses with off street parking have electric charging points and clearly if more people have access they will make the transition and if the council is truly committed to cleaner air then surely this would be a way to it. Ensure charge points are situated outside every house and I bet EVs would quickly replace petrol and diesel.

BBC News - E-bike and e-scooter fires at record high in London https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66672360

Very interesting article about the politics behind the withdrawal of the service in Paris.

No Malumbu - if you read the article you would realise it is saying heating is the largest source of NO2 in London air - it doesn't mention anything about roadside pollution - you've added that, not the journalist. Anyway, before you take this thread off on a tangent I only posted it to show that some are lobbying for other polluting sources to be charged in the same way as the ULEZ operates. Maybe restart the thread on ideas to combat pollution that got deleted following posts by your esteemed fellow poster as that thread was going in the right direction before it got removed as this would be a good discussion point for that.

Errrm, thanks Malumbu...did you actually read the article....? I was only posting it as I thought it was interesting that some now feel domestic and commercial heating will need some form of ULEZ not as an excuse for a snarky school lesson from you i had one of those from Mr Chicken on engineering....;-) Research suggests most of the nitrogen dioxide pollution in the London air comes from burning fuels for heating, with action demanded from the government to tackle the problem.

Malumbu - doing my best not to feed the trolls! 😉 But yes, I have been very supportive of electrification of any road vehicle as it seems to me to be the quickest fix to a problem - but I was shocked to hear how few miles the "electric" black cabs do as pure electric they are hybrid rather than full electric but any reduction has to be considered a step in the right direction. I just wish others felt the same way about helping encourage the transition to electric cars as that does seem like the most sensible near-term solution to transition away from combustion engines.

Did anyone know this was even on the table? Now the Mayor has passed the baton to councils over this it will be interesting to hear what Southwark says - they did not respond to the BBC when approached but other councils have said they have no plans to implement it - I suspect the Mayor's office is doing a cleanse of anything buried in their plans they think might become a political hot potato ahead of the mayoral election and ahead of the general election. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66647266

Interesting - the purple ones are where there are existing CPZs in play I think? They ran a consultation in 2019 for the Rotherhithe and Surrey Quays one and omitted a "yes/no" response mechanism but in 2021 ran a consultation for the Trafalgar Extension zone where they did offer a "yes/no" response. Links both below https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/trafalgarcpz/results/zonetconsultationreport2021.pdf https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s102320/Appendix 3.pdf In the Trafalgar one of all the roads consulted 19 were in support and 27 were against but they seem to have made the decision on the basis that the overall number of individual responses (120 yes/113 no) were slightly higher - which if they had applied that model in reverse to East Dulwich would have meant no CPZ anywhere. Is it just me or are they seemingly making the rules up on a ward by ward basis?

And the above always feels like the Achilles Heal for the council as it always seems the consultation process (for many things) is just a way for them to tick the boxes and "validate" the procedural requirement to roll them out after they have taken their decision. They got away with it during Covid but now, with the increased attention on such schemes, they may not have such an easy ride of it moving forward. I do ponder why they are not doing this in East Dulwich but the surrounding areas and I wonder if the 68% against in the previous consultation could become a thorn in their side.

TTW - are they still asking for architectural plans/drawings or have they amended the process?

I second that - Legal that is really interesting. I do feel the council are running down a dead-end of CPZs and they may be running out of a goodwill runway from a legal perspective. It seems to me (and before Mr Chicken jumps in - I have no legal background whatsoever) but it appears they have been able to bend the rules with the LTNs and have used that momentum on CPZs but they might come a cropper - the "second" consultation promise looks like a U-turn because they know what they are doing now is risky. I do also think the judge in the ULEZ case might have put the cat amongst the pigeons within the council/s and I bet they are determining whether the bar for the consultations needs to be raised as he was critical of the robustness of the ULEZ consultation and that asked a simple yes or no question (but they ignored the majority response against). The last thing Labour HQ will want is a load of Labour councils getting a legal pummelling on these interventions especially as the Tories are clearly making it their No.1 (and seemingly only) election focus.

And seemingly some think domestic heating as well needs to have some sort of ULEZ as it is the largest NO2 source in London......(apologies in advance to Mr Chicken if he thinks the publication I link to has some right-wing/Tory agenda but the Mr Chicken approved media outlet The Guardian hasn't written about this subject....;-)) https://www.homebuilding.co.uk/news/ULEZ-charge-on-homes

Of course you don't because the fact the council has stated that Dulwich PTAL scores are low doesn't suit your narrative. Maybe the part of London that you live in has good PTAL scores but Dulwich certainly does not.

Another batch.....Dulwich Library does seem to have something of a problem at that junction

Well, not according the council's own 2018 Transport report into Dulwich which covered Dulwich area PTAL scores....but you know that already.....but here it is in case you have forgotten from the last time I had to post it.......;-) The Dulwich area has a low level of public transport accessibility. Areas around the main stations only reach a PTAL 3 and The Village a PTAL 2 whilst the main commercial area around East Dulwich has a PTAL 3. Other parts of Dulwich, particularly those where schools are located have a level 2 of accessibility translating into a higher use of car and coach for pupils outside of Dulwich.

Always keep in mind the judge's summing up from the ULEZ lawfulness challenge and the robustness of the consultation (which will put more pressure on any consultations): "While the consultation conducted was not in-depth, it was lawful." The ULEZ consultation included a response to respond against the plans - the CPZ consultation doesn't which may not qualify as "in-depth" and I sense this is why Southwark are promising a second consultation for some CPZs. That is most likely in direct response to the judge's comments and the warning shot he fired across their bow.

Has Evans Cycles now gone - it's all boarded up? If so, I feel sorry for the team that worked there as they were fantastic.

Malumbu - are you the genius author of the council's "consultation" as that is 100% what they are asking residents? 😉 No chance to say you don't want one, just "when we roll it out what type do you want". That is clearly not a robust consultation.

Absolutely.. its about the researchers at Imperial, who were being paid by Sadiq's office, coming to a conclusion that Sadiq and his team were "really disappointed" over and then Imperial having to agree a statement with them aimed to redress it. A classic case of when those you paid to do research for you don't reach the conclusion you were hoping your money would pay for......it all gets a bit complicated...;-)

It seems some are not keen on critical analysis......

Heartblock, completely agree. Some on here only want to attack and deposition (probably because they have no rational argument to oppose your rational argument and analysis). Thank you for digging that out.