legalalien

And let?s not forget the practice that has developed of ordering loads of clothes online, trying them on, and sending the ones you don?t want back. I don?t do this but you do see loads of people queued up at the post office seemingly returning goods.

For info, proposed changes to Bellenden Road as part of the continued roll out of the Southwark Spine. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50028535 Good to see the council splitting out residents? responses from out of area responses and acknowledging the latter are likely to have been in response to Southwark Cyclists soliciting responses (which they are of course entitled to do). I suspect those responses may be a key contributor to the fairly skewed age and ethnicity profiles of respondents.

I?m on team crackdown on home deliveries. Get rid of unlimited delivery per month charges as opposed to per delivery charges for a start. The charge for each delivery should approximate the cost of that delivery.

There is a wider conversation, but this is a discussion about a specific LTN, and if this LTN doesn?t work to get people out of cars (or it works to reduce the number of trips but increases overall mileage) then it doesn?t make sense, regardless of whether alternatives are or are not available. If it does work, then the conversation is about whether the negative impact is worth it. You can?t just look at one policy aim in isolation. (Just like there was a trade off between health benefits of lockdown vs economic impact and negative health and educational effect of lockdown). Reduction in cars is not the be all and end all, there are other considerations (amenity of affected residents, air pollution - up or down, redistributed? Economic effect on local businesses, including those using cars and other vehicles for work, other effects, which include impact on those with disabilities and inconvenience to people). Is reducing car numbers the biggest priority? I throw that out there without expressing a view, but just to say that a wider conversation needs to go beyond the question of ?how else to get people out of cars?. Another interesting thing to consider is whether, given the high proportion of through traffic in the area, any reductions in traffic can be said to be down to this specific LTN configuration or could rather be down to road interventions elsewhere - and I don?t think there?s an easy way to untangle that information. If there is a traffic reduction, won?t that be down to a combination of loads of LTNs across different boroughs, but with each borough claiming that its own individual scheme is responsible. Is anyone counting the traffic crossing into Southwark from neighbouring boroughs I wonder? I don?t go into the Lounge as I fear there might be trolls in there? plus it would probably be addictive - same reason I don?t have a Twitter account or other social media. Would rather have those discussions IRL over a pint.

Thanks ex-D. The missing info from that will (I suspect- haven?t read it yet!) be about younger children (who can?t get the coach) and DPL as only a very small proportion of their pupils get the foundation school coaches - they used to have their own minibuses but not sure if they still do? I suspect parents driving younger children and to DPL are a fair proportion of school traffic. As long as parents have one ?younger? child at a Dulwich school, they tend to do the school run for all children. And then it?s the case that any children with extracurricular activities in the Dulwich area end up being driven as the coach times don?t work. So smaller catchments are a better option than more coaches, I suspect. I?ll have a read when I get a chance. In terms of their legal obligations to have their travel plans, do you know where do those stem from? Would be interested to see what the targets are and how compliance is measured.

I think the private schools could help by becoming less academically selective. They?re massively oversubscribed so there?s really no need for them to be quite so selective, at least as regards fee paying students. We currently have a situation with quite a number of local pupils being ferried to Sydenham girls, Streatham and Clapham, Croydon schools, Eltham who weren?t offered places at the more local schools. And other children coming in the other direction. It would be quite interesting to see a map of the schools? catchment areas, I wonder if it?s something Safe Routes to School have had access to or looked at. I imagine primary school aged children coming from Wandsworth make up a fair chunk of the school traffic.

I trust the evidence of my own eyes as I walk down EDG a lot. The council?s data has yet to find a real way of comparing like with like, given all the various factors that affect traffic, in my view, and given all the issues there have been with data manipulation / delays / misleading summaries and comms they?ve produced, unfortunately I?m now at the point that I don?t trust a thing they produce. I suspect many others feel the same. It?s a situation which I recognise is incredibly unhelpful, but one I think the council has created. I?m tired of having to dig through council data to try and find out what and how they?ve decided to measure things. LTN fatigue.

Heartblock - I think there are plenty of things we disagree on politically and probably some other things we do agree on but -Why do I oppose these particular LTNs - because the evidence I have read does not prove to me that pollution and traffic has been reduced by LTNs and the evidence I see on your road also informs me that traffic and congestion is now worse on your road. Can someone who knows tell me if I am hardcore or not and if so whether there are some other thoughts I am or should be thinking?

And don?t forget that Southwark has also imposed the socioeconomic duty on itself https://justfair.org.uk/southwark-council-amends-constitution-to-include-socio-economic-duty/ (Before anyone jumps in to mention any general studies, Southwark has to have regard to that duty in its own decision making. Properly, not just a mention in the decision making report to tick a box. I?m yet to be convinced that has happened). oldermum Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The possible course for further action is that it > has breached the Equalities Act by failing to > consider appropriately the needs of those who are > defined as having 'protected characteristics" > under the act. The act isn't flawless but does > include age (any age, not just the elderly) and > those with disabilities who could be thought to be > disproportionally affected because some people in > those groups will have limited mobility and won't > be able to walk for long distances, cycle and have > difficulty using public transport. There are many > other protected characteristics including gender > and race, but it is harder to see how they could > apply. Southwark has now agreed to exempt Blue > Badge holders (very strict mobility criteria - > can't walk more then 250 yards on most days), but > only those who live in Southwark. The congestion > charge is not applied to any Blue Badge holder, no > matter where they live. > There is no time like an election year to get the > interest of your local councillor. There will also > be an election within the Labour Party to decide > who succeeds Harriet Harman at some point...

Thought I had posted earlier but didn?t work, clearly. Conways are at Court / Calton this morning moving planters around to make way for ambulances etc.

Charging at Walworth bus depot it seems - this article has some other interesting info as well. With home heating charges so high I can see that a day spent on a new bus with a skylight and phone charger could be a good day out! A friend and I used to spend hours studying on a little used and well heated bus on a scenic route back in the dark ages when I was at university. https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/articles/fleet-of-new-electric-buses-coming-to-route-63-51749/

I got mine at about 7am Saturday morning hand delivered (no envelope)

The delayed presentation/ interrogation of Cllrs Rose and Burgess about their respective portfolios is on the agenda for next Monday?s meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=7273&x=1 A good test of whether the LDs can come up with some properly incisive questions to ask - which for me is key to my vote in May. I?d like to see some properly thought out detailed questions about the whereabouts of raw data, choice of data points and presentation of data, for example.

On a related note if anyone is visited by canvassers, worth interrogating them about parking policy as well as LTNs, from earlier discussions the borough wide imposition of a CPZ is something planned but being put off until after the election. Was interested to see that the countryside charity is now also on a mission to reduce residential parking in London - even front garden parking. We have to be in compact cities to save the countryside, among other rationales. https://www.cprelondon.org.uk/news/why-boroughs-need-to-re-assess-parking-policy-now/

I think they will be moving planters and putting in cameras so that emergency services can go through. Strange they?re having to do this when the emergency services were consulted from the outset and were perfectly happy with the closures. Oh that?s right - they weren?t.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/5082b26c-8b4e-11ec-b5fe-7fe087ff87b5?shareToken=47431d423f6127b3a144c4987c05d80b Another interesting article in the Times today, with more safety concerns and a small amount of digging around about mis-selling. Pedestrians - keep your wits about you! Apparently they?ve banned escooters on the Parliamentary estate.

I found ?improve traffic conditions? a bit ambiguous, I have to say. It might for example mean putting a bike lane down East Dulwich Grove, heedless of any effect on congestion.

I?ve just been skimming through a planning application for a new building in Rotherhithe as it?s interesting to see how Southwark?s ?car free? borough policy feeds through to some of these https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s105163/ROTHNEWROAD_VG_%20final%20V7.pdf Interested to see just how little provision is made for ?visitor parking? (cars or cycles) to these new developments, and also the interaction between the council and TfL on modelled changes to local trips. Here, looks as though Southwark allowed for a small increase in private vehicle journeys and TfL have come back and told them that ALL trips have to be allocated to sustainable travel modes. I?m not sure what that means for any disabled residents. Southwark seems to contemplate two disabled parking bays but these are only ?potential?. Many of the new developments seem to be taking a similar approach. If public transport was perfect and convenient everywhere I guess this might work, but. Given the current financial state of TfL and the question mark over the Bakerloo Line extension (not relevant to this particular devt, but is for all the ones on the Old Kent Road), I do wonder what will happen.

There?s a full press release here with a bit more info (cutting edge wood effect floors!) interesting to see that this route is nearly back to pre-pandemic levels. https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2022/february/new-green-productivity-boosting-buses-introduced-but-no-more-will-be-delivered-until-a-long-term-funding-deal-is-secured

I haven?t seen the leaflet. Re socioeconomic equality, as I understand it that part of the Act isn?t in force however Southwark has adopted it as part of its constitution. To great fanfare, which is why I?m not impressed that they seem to think that a brief mention of it in decision making reports, rather than a proper analysis, is sufficient. It?s whatever the equalities equivalent of green washing is. Was disappointed that the LDs didn?t make more of this when they tried to call in the decision tbh.

They?re protected characteristics rather than groups I believe: https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/equality-act/protected-characteristics So the protected characteristic of ?age? would capture children as well as old people. ?Race? is also capable of capturing ?white British? in particular circumstances but generally it?s the interests of minority groups that are likely to be overlooked and require specific attention. From a quick scan of the EHRC webpage, ?There are no express requirements to undertake engagement under the specific duties for England (and non devolved bodies in Scotland and Wales). However, case law states that consultation/involvement/engagement may still be important in ensuring public authorities understand the impacts of some types of decisions on different people.? More info about this and impact assessment type stuff here https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance-faq/specific-duties-faqs-england-only.

I could be wrong but I think heartblock is referring to TfL's FoI responses/ position on the DfT benchmarking exercise. See for example, https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-of-information/foi-request-detail?referenceId=FOI-1884-2021. It doesn't sound as if DfT or TfL have particularly comprehensive data, reading some of the emails on there.

Or as I said to the canvasser yesterday- I haven?t decided who to vote for yet but I have decided who not to vote for. I can?t not vote as the importance of voting has been drummed into me from a young age.

Had a LD canvasser this evening. Useful discussion. Still undecided.

Kissthisguy I think you mean ?of course SOME people?s views evolve..?. Some people?s views patently don?t, which has made conspiracy theorists of us all. Which is why I think votes may boil down to how much voters feel they can trust individual candidates.