Rockets

Ha ha...The Guardian in "selectively plucking" shocker....can we file this as activist journalism to join the activist research that has been so prevalent. In other words Peter Walker either got played by someone leaking the bits to him they knew he would jump on to try and skew the perception of the report before it was published or he didn't read the whole report or ignored parts of it that didn't suit his agenda. Not a good look either way.....and look what happens, the misleading article gets used by those with a vested interest - what do you call a group of selective pluckers? The cycle lobby.... https://twitter.com/willnorman/status/1766130558306865196?s=19 https://twitter.com/London_Cycling/status/1766134542383956361?s=19 I do wonder whether the sudden appearance of monitoring strips all over Dulwich is linked to the government report; that Labour are worried and expecting the govt to try and make political capital over the way these have been rolled out, the lack of monitoring. Interesting that the govt report is based on local authority monitoring data and reports by Aldred, Goodman et al as that seems to be the only data that exists (and will no doubt be seen as self-serving and flawed by the govt). Actually the answer to my question may be in the Guardian report and I wonder whether there will be pressure to run a proper LTN consultation to "put residents first" as I suspect the lack of a yes/no response in Southwark's may be it's achilles heal from a legal perspective. Question is whether this can happen before Labour win the next election. A DfT spokesperson said: “We are clear that many local authorities have not put local residents first when implementing low-traffic neighbourhoods. We are backing motorists and will produce new guidance focused on the importance of securing strong local support.”

What are you suggesting, maybe put planters along every road inside the A205 perhaps or go further and ban any cars within the M25...? 😉 Not sure many would agree with your assumption that turning London in a huge LTN would actually be that smart a move! Seriously though, Lambeth put an LTN in in Streatham and look at the devastation it caused (the day after the LTN is removed and traffic is moving freely again). How do you rationalise/explain that? LTNs make congestion and pollution worse and will go down in history as one of mankinds most bluntest instrument and stupid idea, dreamt up and propped up by people who put ideology ahead of commonsense, logic and pragmatism (and were invariably linked to the cycle lobby. I do think people will look back and say, what on earth were they thinking....it was bleedingly obvious what was going to happen...traffic wouldn't evaporated it would merely take a different route (especially in areas where public transport is poor) this causing more congestion and pollution. Let's go back to my issue with LTNs - that for someone to have quieter streets within an LTN someone else has to have busier streets...is that fair or do you think that is just luck of the draw, that if you live on a boundary road then you just have to accept more traffic and pollution so your neighbours can have less?

I refer my right honourable friend to the Streatham Wells LTN to see how thay went.......;-) Your argument is way too simplistic. You can't make London one huge LTN it would cease to function. So then you do what the council has done which is choose which residents get the benefit and which residents live with the fallout...that is not socially just and very un-socialist. Melbourne Grove are happy, East Dulwich Grove not - how is that fair? Reducing traffic on my road may make me happier but that comes at the cost of someone else being unhappier. I do not want to live in a world where that is a trade off and nor should you.

Good, the article is designed to get the LTN fan-boys to cite it as proof of success (which people seem more than happy to do) when it is anything but. It's a distortion article. If you reduce traffic within the LTNs is only good if you are reducing traffic outside the LTNs as well rather than just displacing traffic onto other roads. As Cllr McAsh stated, if you're not decreasing traffic on all roads then they cannot be considered a success....take a look at the council's latest traffic monitoring dashboard to see how that is going... The basic premise of an LTN is to close some roads and squeeze more traffic down the open ones in tne hope it dissuades people from driving.

Ha ha... ..LTNs are popular with people who live "WITHIN" LTNs.. ...they reduce traffic volumes "within" their zones... Oh my oh my oh my....it's actually laughable that people cite this as proof of their success. I am sure those who lived within the Streatham Vale LTN loved them....everyone else slightly less so! Timing, it's all about timing...;-)

Yes LTNs are popular with people who live inside LTNs (which is exactly what that article says)....but that is hardly a surprise is it? I am sure the residents of Melbourne Grove are very happy with their LTN......can you not see the issue with the headline and narrative of the article on the basis of that? My goodness me...

Clearing citing the popularity of LTNs with people who live within them is no measure of their popularity nor does it warrant the misleading headline. The headline and stand first is slightly missing a key point don't you think and ever so slightly misleading...the editorial scrutiny process has always been weak at the Guardian but seems to be getting worse and worse. If a hyperactive 17 year old cub reporter had taken that copy to an editor the editor would have sent them away asking them to report the story and not try to create the story. As I said, another in a long-line of classic Peter Walker "exclusives". Whoever leaks these to him knows he will give them a very sympathetic myopic write-up.

Err no. I actually read the article rather than just the headline (heed my advice, Peter Walker's articles often tell a different story to his/or his sub-editor's headlines). The key is this paragraph here: A copy of the report seen by the Guardian said that polling carried out inside four sample LTNs for the DfT found that overall, twice as many local people supported them as opposed them. The key word phrases there being the polling carried out "inside" the LTNs. Most hyper-active 17 year olds could work out the issue with that....maybe Peter Walker hopes Guardian readers can't 😉

Ha ha....another classic myopic Peter Walker exclusive....government report suggests that LTNs are popular.....with people living within the LTNs....well no s+++ Sherlock.....my goodness me...

Yes and that's why it will be interesting to see the details of how the consultation results played out - last time the council tried to force a CPZ on the area they could only do it in the roads where they had "support" for it from residents (and some of that was generous use of support to say the least). I am deeply suspicious by lack of detail on the consultation results shared with the missive that they were reducing the area of the CPZ. Of course they have to get a CPZ in as that's the only way they can try to create parking pressure on neighbouring roads with the displacement caused by, for example, the teachers parking further away from the school - they also have to ensure they have places to patrol for that £12m contract they gave APCOA!!! 😉 The council clearly have taken a hell of a spanking from residents over the CPZ issue - amazing what happens when you are forced to run a fair and transparent consultation with a clear yes/no answer - perhaps we should all call for all of the previous consultations to be re-run and see how the council gets on with things like the DV junction/LTN consultation! They have just found out that their ability to cheat the system has come to an abrupt end. Power to the people!!! 😉

Human behaviour, especially that of a selfish nature, is often the very last thing to change...

Ha ha....proper analysis, and scratching beneath the surface is something the council and their fan-boys absolutely hate, so many are happy to slurp on the council Kool-Aid and take everything presented at face value! 😉

Clearly, despite the councils claims to the contrary in their decisions on the Dulwich Village CPZ, CPZs do nothing for school drop off issues with inconsiderate drop-off parking and unless you can stop people driving their children to school (with maybe school buses but look at the incessant moaning Clean Air Dulwich does about those at Alleyn's - you can never please some people) then inconsiderate drop-offs are going to have to be something we live with. School streets are great but invariably move the problem to the next closest street. Nigello is right, this issue impacts private and state schools in equal measure - to their point just go spend some time around Goodrich around drop off time!

I had the letter attached dropped through the door this morning and the council are going ahead with a much smaller CPZ zone following the consultation where, the council says: "some residents actively wanted controlled parking in their roads but the majority did not". Interesting that the council has not shared any detail from the consultation in the letter - usually they share the numbers and I think it will be worth looking at the responses for Calton and Townley to see if the CPZ has support on those roads (friends of ours on Calton suggested to us that they and their neighbours were against the measures). Perhaps now we can see why the council steadfastly refused to add "yes/no" questions to previous consultations as it seems once they do people are able to have their voices heard. Well done people of Dulwich - finally the council has had to listen to you (one wonders whether these results throw doubts on other consultations that were fudged by the council!

Lambeth are always doing u-turns on ill thought out traffic measures - remember the Loughborough Junction debacle? They must be wasting a fortune of tax-payers money on these schemes and you know no-one will be held accountable for the chaos they caused (in a not unsurprising "its not our fault" defence it's all Thames Water's fault apparently). The fact it is being withdrawn with immediate effect shows how bad it was. It's amazing no-one at the council considered the impact of the measures they were putting in. You have to question the professionalism of the people involved and whether they had any clue what they were doing. Too soon Lambeth Cyclists too soon...(clearly reading the room is not their forte) 😉

To be fair his TFL fare freeze (which is his, ahem, gift to Londoners ahead of the mayoral elections) is costing £123m which is probably a large chunk of the TFL element of the council tax rises.....

Parking permit charges need to go up to fund vanity projects like the DV junction redesign that the majority of people (who responded to the consultation) don't want but meantime things like cycle hangers and better street lighting needs to be Crowdfunded because the council "doesn't have any money"....go figure....

There is a dearth of good Sunday lunch pubs and any that are good for food (Crocked Well in Camberwell and Rosendale in West Dulwich etc) don't show the sport leaving you with a hotch-potch of options that aren't the best for food I am afraid. I have always found there is a strong correlation between showing sport and (lack of) quality food! The Actress used to be good for those (myself included) wanting to keep a sly-eye on the sport but only if you want pizza.....a strategically positioned table between the food and sport showing areas always used to work a treat (until someone in my family rumbled what I was doing! ;-))

Good news for the Deliveroo/Uber delivery riders. Bad news for the fire brigade Bad news for pedestrians Good news for those who think e-bikes need to be registered And given the reaction from them, clearly bad news for the UK bike/e-bike manufacturing industry that clearly isn't ready to support these new bigger e-bikes and/or sees market share erosion to them putting yet more pressure on the troubled bike manufacturing industry.

Despite the overwhelming opposition to the DV design proposals (close to 50% of all respondents responded "not at all" to the questions on whether the redesign would achieve it's stated aims) - and remember there was no "yes/no" mechanism on this consultation - the council appears to be forging ahead with them.....someone should probably remind the councillors that 82% of all of the respondents to the consultation said they live in Dulwich....will the council ever listen to their constituents, why bother to run consultations (each consultation is estimated to cost around £50,000) if they plan to ignore the input of residents.......? The council's report says: Instructs officers to proceed to the detailed design stage for the Dulwich Village Junction Improvements.

Clearly the overwhelming majority of respondents to the consultation do not support the proposed changes.....if the council don't take heed of the consultation results then they are incredibly blinkered/foolish... It will be very interesting to see how the council/their cheerleaders try to spin this...

Given the blanket stickering of all greens bins with messages that food waste now needs to go into the small brown caddy bins I wonder how long it will be before the council starts issuing fines for anyone with food waste in the green bin!

Can't be used....yet...I wonder if they know that with a Labour victory at the election the rules may change opening the floodgates for councils to raise funds by "any means necessary" and Southwark are getting their revenue grab in early with this and things (that the council considers a sign of wealth) like the brown bin charges - all of which are increasingly massively year-on-year.

They seem to have gone in all over the area - I saw some on East Dulwich Road, there are three sets on Barry Road and even some on Desenfans Road. I wonder if, finally, the council are trying to get a proper area-wide view of the impact of LTNs, especially given the placement of the strips suggests they are trying to ensure that the sub-10kmp/h non-recording issue is not a factor.

Here: https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s115170/Report GW3 Parking and Traffic Enforcement and associated services contract.pdf This is the report submitted to Southwark Cabinet meeting by Cllr McAsh and that was the trigger for the Cabinet agreement to extend and expand the APCOA contract. Some key snippets (the total contract is actually £12.5m with £2.5m to provide an extra 48 enforcement officers - which is why there are so many of them circling Lordship Lane all the time now). That cabinet approves the variation of the parking and traffic and associated services contract with APCOA Parking UK Ltd to utilise the available contract extension to extend the term of the contract for a period of three years from 1 June 2024 to 31 May 2027 in the sum of £4,150,611 p.a. and £12,451,833 across the three-year extension period. 2. That cabinet approves a variation of the existing contract with APCOA Parking UK Ltd for parking enforcement and associated services as outlined in paragraphs 10 to 11 in the sum of £2,578,309 p.a to provide an additional 48 civil enforcement officers (CEO) up to a total value of £9,668,660 for the period from 1 September 2023 to January to 31 May 2027 (three years and nine months - 45 months). Interestingly in the Southwark News article (https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/southwark/traffic-warden-contract-worth-11-5-million-branded-appalling-waste-of-money-after-southwark-councils-cpz-u-turn/) Cllr McAsh claims that this contract was not pre-empting the borough-wide CPZs yet in the document he submitted to cabinet last July it said (is he being economical with the truth to Southwark News?): The contract is based on enforcement of the whole borough albeit 32% of the borough does not have controlled parking. There is a need for additional civil enforcement officers to be deployed within the contract in order to provide the capacity to enforce the controlled parking zones that are to be implemented by August 2024. If you can spend over £12m on a parking enforcement contract (to ultimately raise more money from constituents) and then spend the suggested £50,000 on a single "consultation" for the failed DV junction redesign, then don't come pleading that you don't have the cash for cycle hangers and street lights.....it might be a good soundbite but when you scratch beneath the surface you realise something isn't adding up and that there might be more than just a little bit of spin/smoke screening going on from the council.....