legalalien

There’s this decision due December, Inthink there is some more background info somewhere https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50030449&PlanId=739&RPID=6240051 ETA: report as of December last year https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s103674/Report%20Gateway%202%20-%20Contract%20Award%20Approval%20to%20award%20the%20main%20works%20contract%20to%20deliver%20phase%202%20of%20T.pdf Will try and look later and see if any docs since last Dec

I think the final phase has ended up being retendered (poss around cost issues)? Will see if I can dig up the link.

Yes I move them. I think we can probably find a workable ebike solution, where hire companies are involved I’d like the council to negotiate sufficient revenue to help fund non hire parking infrastructure. And let’s give escooters a miss 😉

Actually went down an internet wormhole earlier and ended up reading an interesting article about the roll out of escooters in Bergen. It was met by a stickering campaign by Norway’s equivalent to the RNIB , who put stickers on scooters found on pavements along the lines of “this scooter has caused difficulties for blind and partially sighted people”.

I completely agree, I support the ebike initiative but not the escooter one. But there must be a commercial rationale for offering escooters as well as bikes, so I’m guessing it’s partly cost and partly the fact that there must be some people who would hire an escooter but not a bike. Browsing around the internet this morning it seems like something like 50-60% of escooter journeys are substituting for journeys that would otherwise be walked, I’m not sure the same would be true for ebike use. So maybe a slightly different market. Apart from the safety point, using an escooter instead of walking doesn’t seem particularly beneficial in terms of reduced energy usage or active travel, so I’m still not an escooter fan.

There’s an open consultation on proposed improvements to this junction in case anyone wants to comment. Closes on 9 November. https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/ivanhoe-road-safety-improvements/

The deadline for responding to the consultation on the Village junction design seems to have been extended to 20 November https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/dulwich-village-streets-for-people-phase-2/ Does anyone else think it odd that the “ before and after” graphics for calton and court have versions of the “before” picture with the “open to traffic” version of the junction that hasn’t existed for years now? Is this to maximise the appeal of the options presented - or have all these side by side pictures - including the Turney Road closure, existed since before the initial “COVID emergency” junction closure, I wonder?

Just to confirm, the escooter trial extension and the ebike trial have been approved https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=7739 Hopefully Southwark will be robust in negotiating the MoUs with the ebike operators ( I’d suggest that reimbursement of costs associated with the trial should include a fee to cover internal admin and legal costs but I’ll bet there is a reference to out of pocket costs and some limited categories!) I am concerned about escooter safety but not in the same way with ebike safety, it would be interesting to understand the degree to which users see one as substitutable for the other. If we have an ebike scheme do we really need an escooter scheme as well? What are the advantages of escooters - are they cheaper / take up less storage space.? Or just more appealing to the younger generation? Does anyone know the thinking on this?

In case anyone is interested here is a link to the TfL FOI response that includes the various emails mentioned above (always good to look at the whole thing to see whether any cherry picking is going on!) It’s here: https://foi.tfl.gov.uk/FOI-1459-2223/FOI-1459%20Redacted.pdf I found this statement in Cllr Rose’s email to Will Norman quite striking: “There are various issues and mistakes made in relation to how it was sent out to residents, which I am addressing with officers in Southwark. But the fundamental issue is how TfL approached the piece of work, which was intended to show improvements over time to bus journeys as a result of recent interventions. Instead we have a narrative of TfL being deemed to have passed a guilty verdict on the Dulwich Streetspace scheme. This has set our work back with this community on Croxted Road years in effect.” In my view TfL should not be approaching its reports with the sort of agenda suggested (“intended to show etc…”, ), rather it should report the situation it observes without an intention to produce a particular conclusion (which it seems is what happened). Do people think this is illustrative of the councillors’ view more generally of the purpose of the various traffic reports (ie they should be designed to support their positions on policy) or am I reading too much into this? ETA There is also this subsequent FOI response with the agenda for the Rose / Norman meeting which indicates some other issues under discussion re various buses, Camberwell station, and (highest priority) resetting the relationship re the Croxted etc discussions https://foi.tfl.gov.uk/FOI-1727-2223/Emails_Redacted.pdf

Oddly enough I commented to someone earlier today that one person’s “call for accountability” was another person’s “witch hunt”. Whatever the policy perspective, bad behaviour is bad behaviour and I really hope that TfL is standing up for its front line employees (sounds like they are) and that any apologies due are delivered.

May be something worth emailing the relatively new CEO about - given she is a newcomer she might be prepared to look at the overall process (rather than the detail) with a set of fresh eyes? Although, looking at the most recent internal audit report, she has a lot to be getting on with (not least the IT department, Major Works, the procurement process and a fair bit of other stuff (including this gem - "We found that there is no regular reporting on risk to the Chief Officer’s Team (COT) or to the departmental senior management teams; the CRR [corporate risk register] is not presented to any further groups for review and the local risk registers are not presented to any of the Council’s committees") - I wish her luck as it looks like a fairly stressful workload). (for info, some stuff about the Movement Plan going forward at around p 84-86). https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s109409/Internal%20Audit%20and%20Anti%20Fraud%20Progress%20Report%20for%20AGSC%2017%20October%202022.pdf

Just to add I hope that when councils consider/ agree to exclusive parking arrangements for commercial hire bikes, they think about arrangements for private owners of conventional and ebikes as well. I don’t think there should be automatic priority for commercial operators in terms of prime spots or speed of roll out (let’s not forget, it’s in the interest of the commercial operators to create an infrastructure which makes it easier for people to use the hire bikes and not their own bikes). Maybe a principle that for every commercial parking area allocated, there needs to be a similar spot for non- hire users?

I’m not sure about the “trap” idea either, just saying that if Southwark is going to do a deal to facilitate parking bays etc specifically for these companies then they should be charging them commercial rates of some sort. And thinking about it, to set they stage they could do worse than start clearing the pavements of abandoned hire bikes, pending an agreement- which it seems is what Westminster are doing - see https://www.moveelectric.com/e-bikes/westminster-council-starts-seizing-rental-e-bikes-left-pavements. Southwark did, after all, sign up to the Equal Pavements Pledge just a few months ago… https://www.southwarklabour.com/2022/07/15/southwark-labour-passes-the-equal-pavements-pledge/

Is suspect it’s the companies themselves who are the worst culprits in terms of scattering bikes in inconvenient locations. I’ve only seen a few people on them locally and they have tended to be 30ish young women. Maybe later in the evening people ride them home after a few drinks as an alternative to a taxi (are they a good substitute for an Uber?)

Some quite interesting background on the scooter / ebike situation here https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s109708/Report%20-%20IDM%20Pan%20London%20E-scooter%20Trial%20and%20Southwark%20E-bike%20Trial%20final.pdf Looks like to date Southwark hasn’t has a formal arrangement with the ebike operators allowing docking stations etc but has less formally allowed bikes to be dropped and collected from pavements etc ( with no financial benefit to the council it would seem). A cynic might say that by behaving badly the bike operators have forced Southwark to the table to make a more formal agreement. It’s not clear to me that Southwark is going to demand more than its costs associated with making parking arrangements ( see paras 35 and 36), I certainly think they should be ( we’re talking corporate multinationals running these services for profit, not local folk trying to save the planet, whatever the marketing hype might suggest).

I agree with all of those (subject to any unforeseen safety issues with the bike racks - if on the front of buses I guess they might get caught on things?) reminds me that my mum used to hang my pushchair on the back of the bus when I was small http://transpressnz.blogspot.com/2012/01/carrying-prams-on-buses-in-lower-hutt.html?m=1 (Found a pic to illustrate this)

It could be worse.. https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2018/03/bike-share-oversupply-in-china-huge-piles-of-abandoned-and-broken-bicycles/556268/ Interesting Guardian article with some of the background here. https://amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2022/jul/28/bicycle-graveyards-why-do-so-many-bikes-end-up-underwater Which led me to these which I thought was interesting, about the failed mobike roll out in Manchester, and their subsequent decision to go with something more integrated with public transport and not allowing loads of bikes randomly dumped about the place (ie docking stations required) https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/what-fate-mobike-can-teach-20582240?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#amp-readmore-target Although still some nervousness about the potential for vandalism https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/nov/10/andy-burnham-dont-throw-manchester-hire-bikes-in-the-canal I hadn’t appreciated that Serco were behind the Santander bikes in London. Apparently they scrapped their Edinburgh scheme last year as vandalism was costing too much.

It was green, yes, and it seemed to come out of nowhere, wasn’t aware it had jumped the light. I think it might have had a name that started with “urb…” as the idea of something like urban sprang to mind, but I was a bit startled and can’t remember- old age!

Have just been reading the 2022 Pupil Place Planning Report, which is interesting not just in relation to the oversupply of school places, but also in giving information about trends in school catchments, both private and state schools. Although the birth rate in PA5 (Dulwich) has been dropping, the numbers at Dulwich schools are actually increasing by a margin of around 16%, which as the report notes, suggests that catchment areas are growing, which I imagine tends to increase the existing problem of motor journeys into the Dulwich area for school drop off and collection - see page 25. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s109543/Report%20Annual%20School%20Place%20Planning.pdf I was interested to see stats on the independent school catchments as I thought they might shed some light on the scale of the school traffic problem. On primaries, "Of the 1,787 pupils attending private primary schools in Southwark, 1,644 (92%) of these were attending schools situated in PA5. That said, only 44 of the latter were LBS residents (3%)". Three percent? That just isn't right (I do the admin for a sports club and there are significantly more than 44 children falling into that category on our books, and we certainly don't have every independent schoolchild in the area enrolled). And then it says on independent secondaries that "The number of private secondary pupils in the local authority area at the eight registered private secondaries has not altered significantly (3,901 secondary age pupils, or around 130 classes), nor those receiving education at home. Around 95 secondary age pupils – 2% of the schools total – attend a private school in Southwark and are resident in Southwark." I'm not very convinced by these figures either, which suggest that only 16 boys in Years 7-13 at Dulwich College live in Southwark (and only 8 in Years 7 and 8 at DPL). If those figures are correct then you can see why it's a massive challenge to get everyone to bike to school (I know some children will live a short distance from the schools but in Lambeth/ Lewisham/ Croydon - but still...). I'm not convinced that they are, though. I seem to recall that in the past the council simply said that it didn't have info on the independent schools, so I wonder where it has come from for this report. If the schools and council are going to try and tackle the school travel problem then some accurate/ granular info about travel patterns would be useful, I imagine. Lastly Kingsdale is noted as having a very large catchment - "Kingsdale – whose admissions criteria are not distance based, and whose position in the far south of the borough on the borders with Lewisham, Croydon, Bromley and Lambeth means that the school receives a majority of its applications (68%) from outside Southwark, and recruits the majority of its pupils from outside Southwark as well."

Incidentally, I nearly got taken out yesterday by a four wheeled electric cargo bike (with a roof, it was nearly the size of a small car) travelling at a fair clip through the junction. Keep your wits about you! A lady cycling by commented that it must be on the borderline of what could reasonably be regarded as a bicycle. If I understand it correctly electric bikes are treated as "pedal cycles" as long as the motor is not able to propel the bike when it’s travelling more than 15.5mph. I'd be quite keen to have a slower limit than that for cycles traversing the Dulwich junction (noting that electric cycles coming down the hill could be travelling faster than that - I guess at the moment there is no speed limit on these electric bikes, but I believe it's possible to introduce byelaws for particular stretches of road?). Hard to enforce in all cases but appropriate signage would help, and at least you'd catch large commercial cargo bikes as they are branded/ it would be possible to contact the company and tell them to slow down.

Wait- they’re closing Turney Road now? Seems so as have just had a flyer through the letterbox… Guessing that blocking off aysgarth, pickwick and boxall will need to be next as not wide enough for through traffic… and then a show down with the Burbage Road residents’ association?

maybe Little Kickers in Brockwell Park? https://www.littlekickers.co.uk/find-a-class football magic in Dulwich good, but they do sell out, you might need to get yourself waitlisted https://footballmagiccoaching.coordinate.cloud/list?location=&age=&activity=&type=3705&name=&dates=&sold_out=

Having walked past a number of times and wondered when the construction work was ever going to finish, spotted this in a recent council capital monitoring report: “The Charter School East Dulwich is being expanded to address a shortfall in spaces in the local area. The project is in its final stage, as the demolition of the remaining buildings has completed. The contract to construct a new hall and refurbish the listed Chateau building is subject to a re-tender. The completion date for the project has been delayed due to the main works contractor withdrawing from the contract and so new procurement arrangements are underway. The project is now expected to complete in 2024-25.” Just thought others might be interested. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s108740/Report%20Capital%20monitoring.pdf

Update on the two Melbourne Grove barriers - now officially being made permanent after the temporary orders made at the end of the previous consultation. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IssueId=50029641&OptionNum=0 ETA - final report here https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s108753/Report.pdf

This is quite an interesting article comparing payment rates in different areas across the country. https://www.lgcplus.com/finance/revealed-winners-and-losers-in-council-tax-rebate-race-and-why-22-08-2022/?utm_campaign=13424519_Key%20Issues%2024%20Aug%202022&utm_medium=email&utm_source=London%20Councils&dm_i=192K,7ZQFB,47DH9Q,WOLXK,1 Councils have been pushing to be allowed to simply credit the amount against council tax bills - simpler for them - but also, and unsaid - a great means of collecting council tax arrears as presumably the whole payment is then applied against any unpaid council tax rather than the recipient choosing what to use it for.