Rockets

Do we understand why people drive their kids to school, it can't all be laziness? I suspect most of us walked to school but back then the school was at the end of the road. Has anyone surveyed school drop drivers to understand why they do it - perhaps rather than just asking people not to do it we need to understand why they do it and look for solutions based on addressing those needs? Given Dulwich'ites walk so much why do so many kids get dropped by car - and the problem seems to be shared equally between state and private. I know Goodrich has always been a problem and so has St Anthony's - has there been a problem at Heber and the like? If not, do we know why?

As I suggested previously It's causing significant political fallout - Labour front-benchers are turning on Khan and so, amazingly, is XR - not sure anyone had that down as something that was likely to happen. It seems, according to Hallam, that only the "urban middle class neo liberal left" like the idea of ULEZ or as we like to call them locally Clean Air Dulwich........;-) (sorry couldn't resist)....

It's all getting a bit uncomfortable now... https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/london-ulez-expansion-charges-labour-sadiq-khan-jonathan-ashworth-b1100694.html And meanwhile (and apologies for posting something from that rag) things you thought you'd never read.....(but does anyone on here identify as an urban middle class neo liberal leftie...;-)) https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12404331/Extinction-Rebellion-founder-Roger-Hallam-slams-urban-middle-class-neo-liberal-Left-Sadiq-Khans-ULEZ-expansion-condemns-scheme-intrusive-regressive-lowest-paid-Londoners.html

And her role in that alone should have precluded her from going anywhere near funded research into LTNs. We all know it, even the most ardent defender of LTNs must, deep down, think that is a serious conflict of interest. And you can't take Anna Goodman's work seriously after her poster episode and again she should be nowhere near any "independent" funded research into LTNs. She has shown she is anything but impartial when it comes to LTNs. But no, many LTN supporters will say...no,no, no this is all perfectly normal and acceptable and go into defend to the hilt mode...but deep down they must know it's not right and highly questionable.

Very much for school streets....very much against displacement and moving the problem elsewhere...if you don't tackle the problem you can never fix the problem - just moving it to the next closest street is not fixing the problem.

Of course it is. She is part of the cycle lobby and has held positions in it. She should be nowhere near anything to do with anything active travel that claims to be independent. As I said earlier she declares it as a conflict of interest in many of her reports so she must feel it could be an issue - just shame those commissioning these reports aren't doing their due diligence...or perhaps they don't care because they also have a vested interest to prove their ideas work. Activist research is a dangerous thing that is great when it works and no-one pays any attention but it can go off the rails very quickly when people start to scratch beneath the surface. The house of cards falls very quickly when those in power start distancing themselves from the mess they created.

You weren't at the meeting we you...then you have no skin in this game at all because you clearly do not know what you are talking about? The vast majority of the people at the CPZ meeting at the Library (both inside and outside the venue) all those years ago were against it - anyone who was there (and I was) will tell you that but, you know, don't let the truth get in the way of a good story and all that! 😉

Mr Chicken - your distraction approach isn't working (either that or you're clearly missing the point entirely). Isn't having Aldred involved akin to asking someone from the motor industry to write the review? She may have knowledge but she has a clear vested-interest (that she declares on many of her research papers). The tobacco industry has knowledge but you would not want them leading a review on the harms of smoking would you?

Mr Chicken - did you attend the first CPZ meetings all those years ago? If you had you would have seen for yourself the shambles when the council massively misjudged the feeling against the CPZs and had to keep people outside because of over-crowding - that ain't a conspiracy theory - it's fact. Did you also attend the Melbourne Grove LTN online meeting where the council only took questions from Clean Air Dulwich, sorry I meant select Melbourne Grove residents and forced anyone else into the chat room!? There's more than enough evidence to suggest the council manipulates these events and platforms (remember the extension of the LTN consultation period and then Labour doorstepping Labour supporters to respond positively?) to their advantage so don't be surprised when people question how they manage and execute things.

Ex- you're right, transport does get it worse...the nepotism and insiders-only approach is horrendous. It's an incestuous closed shop of active travel activists all of whom have roles both setting and marking the homework. The point remains does anyone think it's a good idea having researchers like Rachel Aldred and Anna Goodman being part of the independent review into LTNs? One was policy lead for the London Cycling Campaign, the other has history of tearing down anti-LTN posters - doesn't suggest to me that they would be totally impartial? That has always been a problem and the Sustrans involvement is another big issue - does anyone think it is healthy having a group lobby for, consult on, get paid to deploy LTNs and then be contracted to be part of the review of LTNs - that's the very definition of a vested interest.

...problem moves to Friern Road now....the displacement continues...

Yes the Tories are doing that because they saw what happened in Uxbridge - they're desperate. But the interesting point is not that, it's the fact that the cosy, nepotistic world of active-travel/cycling lobbying, councils, researchers, journalists and consultants is going to get a spotlight shone on it. It is utter madness that it was allowed to get this far to be honest.

Please no Wagamama's! Lordship Lane is starting to resemble an airport departures zone as it is already!

This is interesting. The Times reporting that the govt is putting pressure to determine if the likes of Rachel Aldred are independent enough to be involved in conducting reviews into LTNs - but is says the review will continue. It is clear many involved have clear conflicts of interest and it is amazing it has been allowed to go on for as long as it has where lobbyists act as the reviewers as well. https://twitter.com/VincentStops/status/1690999995439153152?t=_AxWkPIzeD8nqeCwJnlG0w&s=19 Some highlights from the article (which can be found in the link): The transport secretary has asked officials to examine how research into low-traffic neighbourhoods and other policies can be "genuinely independent" amid concerns that studies are being conducted by people whose opinion might prejudice their work. And Anna Goodman's moment of stupidity with the anti-LTN poster gets called out as well. Very interesting as well was this part on Sustrans which highlights the ludicrousness of contracting an organisation to review the schemes that was involved in both lobbying for them and then paid to implement them - not only are you allowing the pupils to mark their own homework they were allowed to set the questions too!!: Another subcontractor for the study is Sustrans, a charity that promotes cycling and walking. This year The Times revealed how Sustrans had actively lobbied for LTNs and received contracts with millions for councils to design and implement the schemes.

The very first set of East Dulwich CPZ meetings years ago were an utter shambles there, people were lining the stairs and there were accusations that the council had tipped supporters off to get there early to fill the seats. I am pretty sure the council committed to finding bigger venues for future meetings on the back of that experience - so it makes you wonder why they are returning there. I wonder how many people are on the waitlist - I wonder if there are sufficient numbers to force the council to run another meeting? Is anyone planning to attend? BTW just looked on the "consultation" link on the Southwark site and it says "informal consultation". Does anyone know whether that has always how it has been referred to or whether the informal part has been added recently - if so it may suggest the council is going to be forced to run a second consultation when people can express whether they want them or not? I can't help but think that the council is tying themselves in knots over this and their efforts to try and force this through without a proper consultation could backfire (and I am convinced the judge's remarks in the ULEZ review are influencing the new direction of travel as he was critical of the robustness of the consultation). https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/dulwich-hill-streets-for-people-consultation/

There was a long thread on the topic with a lot of detailed explanations but: with a westerly wind we get planes heading on approach to Heathrow and they will be somewhere near 4,000 ft above us and the noise will be dependent on a lot of factors like cloud base and how strong the wind is and whether they are transitioning flaps, have landing gear down (which would be unusual this far out) etc - most of the noise you hear is the air over the airframe of the plane as the engines are pretty much idle (unless it is blustery and the engines are spooling for additional power). When the wind is an easterly you will get planes heading into City airport and they will be much lower in their approach (they head from here and slingshot around the Shard for their approach into City) and often they are noisier as they are much lower and also more likely to be transitioning flaps (the old BAE 146 that used to be used a lot at City used to howl as the flaps transitioned with a very distinctive sound).

Malumbu - that's an, ahem, interesting take on a title for a thread. Is there nothing you don't feel the need to police - from now onwards perhaps you should rename yourself P.C. Malumbu.....? 😉

The Southwark zero-concession policy on things like this is very un-Labour (but not an isolated incident) and I do hope they do a U-turn on this as well. Some members of the council seem to be letting their personal ideology on cars get in the way of their socialist principles.

The world does not need any more Gail's......there are way too many already....;-)

The first thing delivery companies ask nowadays is "do you have controlled parking on your street", as they know the problems it causes for them and the increased risk of them getting pinged by a council eager to earn some revenue! Definitely centrist nowadays - well if Keir has his way at least - it seems embracing champagne socialism is making a big comeback - Cllr McAsh will be gnawing his teeth as he smiles! 😉 - actually having an ex-city sugar trader as a councillor colleague must really test his Marxist beliefs!!! On this - recently overheard in a Dulwich eatery two families discussing how they will both be in their houses in Cornwall at the same time so should get together.....Dulwich is definitely changing...and I am not sure for the better..... but that might be a thread someone needs to start! 😉

It would be interesting to know how Lime (and others) are being used - I sense the majority are being used for very short journeys that are either taking modal share from walking or, in central London, public transport. Has there been any research into that? No and they won't go under because their business plan will be quite clear that they will run at a loss for a long time until they own the market exclusively and then they can gradually raise prices to become profitable (it's how they raised $1.5bn in funding before going public). I think Uber only has a minority stake anyway. There is a lot riding on this for them so hence their request for 10,000 more bays in London and exclusivity......but you need competition to keep prices low so Sadiq won't fall for that ruse!

Does Lime ever publish journey distances made by their riders? I seem to remember reading it was an average of about 1mile a journey - if so, is that replacing walking? On the locations of rental bays, in the, clearly paid-for by Lime, Steer research into Lime they said: “Lime e-bikes extend the reach of public transport – on a typical weekday morning 97% of the population within the operating zone are within two minutes walk of a bike. Around 7% of Londoners live within the same distance to tube and rail stations.” And Mr Chicken, I don't think Lime want to kill off Uber as Lime was part-born from Uber when Uber sold Jump to Lime and is now owned by a VC company that Uber has a holding in! Lime is far more interested in killing off Human Forest and the other rental companies vying for the London market - in the same way Uber runs at a loss to try to kill off other cabs and take the market exclusively before hiking up prices!

But a second consultation - as in asking people whether the approve or not, which is the gist of the comments from the councillor? That's not usual is it? Did they do a second consultation after the first CPZ consultation a few years back? The councillor says (and on the basis of this are we expecting a second one for Dulwich? Cllr Sandra Rhule was the first to mention it on the night, stating: “You will get the chance to say no. “The first consultation was to find out public opinion and it clearly worked. But the second one will give you the chance to say no. The statutory one – the official, legal one is the one where you get to say no.”

Interesting article on the Lime bike problem here....council blames Lime bike (and other companies) Lime bike retorts (via transport consultancy research) - give us more places to park our bikes.... https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/electric-bike-ebike-london-lime-rental-tfl-councils-parking-spaces-b1099280.html and here is Lime's strategic motive to help offer to fund the parking bays......they want exclusivity in London.....they say... It is clear that a standardised, London-wide service with more dedicated shared e-bike parking locations across the capital is now needed to help simultaneously facilitate growing popularity, maintain convenience and ensure tidy parking.

The article is quite interesting with the councillors suggesting there will be two consultations in Nunhead, the current one and then a statutory one where people can object which will be run later. I think the council's legal team may have had to intervene and have suggested a second one and I bet that input has been based of analysis of the judges' comments on the ULEZ challenge. I think Southwark have realised they are open to legal intervention if they don't give people the chance to say no - they can ignore the results but must be worried a judge might say there are problems if you don't give the right to say no. So ludicrously, at a time when they tell us they have no money, they have to run two consultations for the same projects. I suspect they will have to do the same for Dulwich. https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/southwark/nunhead-councillors-say-people-will-get-chance-to-say-no-to-cpzs-but-it-wont-change-anything/