Rockets

I hope James is ok - the publicity on him and his girlfriend in the Daily Mail has led to hideous attacks on social media with some seemingly concerted and co-ordinated attempts to try to get him sacked from his job.

PeterW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "And lo and behold looking at the original report > makes you realise why they took it to Peter Walker > as an exclusive?.because they knew he wouldn?t > give it any proper scrutiny and basically write > what the authors wanted him to write?? " > > Hello, Peter Walker here, on my > once-every-few-months scan of this forum to see if > I've been borderline-defamed. I get some people > have very strong views on modal filtering, but, > your occasional reminder that it's not really on > to publicly accuse a journalist of being biased or > corrupt. As much as anything else, it's a bit > juvenile and pretty rude. You don?t need to stoop to name calling Peter. Come on, you know the game, you get the exclusive because you will give the authors or PR agency that sent it to you a sympathetic article - you are after all a pro-cyclin, pro-LTN campaigner. I very much suspect it is why you got the exclusive despite moving to a political beat on the Guardian. Maybe you can explain my comment on your claim that the authors found no evidence of slowing emergency response times yet the report clearly says otherwise and I quote: The London Fire Brigade reports that ?traffic calming measures? have been identified as the main reason for vehicle delay 3,035 times in 2021, up from 2,145 times in 2020. The evidence is there in the report, the authors just chose to ignore it and you reported that they found no evidence. That is not correct is it, and actually very misleading? Is it not your job to challenge the authors should you find such inconsistencies?

Jenijenjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Olivia Colman moved to this area in 2011 and has > now left us for Norfolk. > > ETA and Jason Statham and Rosie > Huntington-Whiteley live in Chelsea Angelina - it was a joke, playing on the fact that we have had everyone from comedians through Oscar winners and one of Hollywood's leading earners. Jason Statham and Rosie H-W do live in Dulwich (maybe their place in Dulwich is their second house in the country!! ;-)). Probably the most famous/infamous was The Iron Lady herself but I doubt any of us would have welcomed her, or seen her, in Sainsbury's during her time as a Dulwich resident - I did, whilst working a Saturday job as a teenager deliver some pine furniture to Maggie's neighbours house - the security to get onto the gated houses was, understandably, ludicrous!

You can probably track the gentrification of the area via the Famous People Spotted in Sainsbrys thread. Started with the likes of Jo Brand, Micky Flanagan and Timothy Spall, moved to some of the McGann brothers, James Nesbitt and Iain Glenn, then Kate Thornton and now Olivia Coleman, Jason Statham and Rosie Huntington-Whiteley!

Dulwich is definitely going through another change with an influx of folks who can afford the ludicrous house prices. To be honest definitely losing the bohemian vibe of 15 years ago as the creatives, media types and artists are gradually being replaced by bankers and other loaded types. And I fear Lordship Lane is starting to reflect this.

It will be interesting to see whether Cllr McAsh accepts Sky News' request to use his footage of the people of Peckham blocking an immigration raid. He might be about to get some national exposure.

Waseley - you're sounding more and more like Malumbu with your I tried not to post..... How on earth am I manipulating anything...please feel free to point out the manipulation.....are you accusing me of being Peter Walker? Or are you saying that my suggestion that London transport links were built to get people in and out of London was somehow manipulated? Or do you think there is a direct route from Bromley to Lordship Lane? Or that 68% of Dulwich residents didn't respond to the consultation saying they didn't want a CPZ? Or that the council ignored that and went ahead anyway? Or that some people think they live in Camberwick Green or Trumpton - ok you got me on that one, those were children's TV programmes involving puppets so I did manipulate that one but only for the purposes of creating a visual metaphor.....

Jenijenjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yep, train from Bromley South to Denmark Hill or > Peckham (about 20 minutes) then walk or bus And there you highlight the problem....hardly direct is it, and that presumes they live close to Bromley South, what if they have to get bus to Bromley South? Your route presumes a 25 minute train journey and then a change to walk or wait for a bus...London was built to get in and out of the city...it is awful trying to get around the city. The sooner people stop presuming everyone lives their lives in London like they live in Trumpton or Camberwick Green the better! So maybe you can understand why people who work on Lordship Lane are so against CPZs. But let's not limit the dislike to CPZs to just those working on Lordship Lane....68% of people said they didn't want it during the last consultation but that, if the council's previous form with the CPZs in Dulwich and now the Old Kent Road CPZs stands for nothing....

But getting in and out of London is easy from everywhere isn't it - linear lines of transport grow out from a city - it's why the Elizabeth Line is such a revelation and why it took so long to build because it doesn't go in an out it goes across. Getting from, say Bromley where I know a few of the shop owners and workers live, to Lordship Lane is not as straight-forward is it?

Is can hardly be any surprise they are against it - many of them require their cars to get to the Lane to run the shops that we frequent - should we punish them for that? You do realise don't you that many, if not most, of the people working in the shops on Lordship Lane don't live locally? There is absolutely no need for CPZs in Dulwich, never has been - even with the meddling the council did to try to create parking pressure when they extended the double-yellow lines across the area ahead of the first CPZ "consultation". It's a stealth tax and completely unnecessary especially in light of the poor PTAL scores in Dulwich and the ever-reducing levels of public transport frequency and options in the area.

I wonder how much of this is a wilful backlog by the council.....they can't Torywash with this as they have had the money sitting in their account since March? It always amazes me how quick organisations are to take money yet always slow to pay it back - what happens if you're two months late on your CT payments..... Direct debits for CT are always automatically updated each year so the reversal process for those who use it should not be taking this long.

One Dulwich update: As you know, Labour councillors were re-elected to all Dulwich wards last month. Because the Dulwich LTNs are supported by all Labour councillors, the Council is likely to see these results as a mandate for keeping the road closures. Our Labour councillors will be in post for the next four years. We hope that they will work with the local community to resolve the serious problems caused by the LTNs. For example, Southwark's own figures show that there is now much more traffic at peak times on roads where thousands of children are walking and cycling to school. There is also growing concern that buses in the Dulwich area are being delayed at peak times because of the displacement of LTN traffic on to bus routes. TfL have now introduced a reduced service for the number 3 bus as a direct result of the traffic congestion and is proposing to cut local bus services further, including plans to get rid of the no. 12 completely. If you would like to object to this, please respond to TfL?s consultation, which runs until 12 July 2022. Southwark should shortly be starting its own consultation on the layout of the closed junction in Dulwich Village. Head of highways Dale Foden said in April 2022, ?Longer term, it is intended to completely reconfigure and redesign the junction to potentially allow vehicles such as blue badge holders, taxis and SEND vehicles to pass through. It is intended to work closely with the emergency services, local resident and local action groups in the redesign of the junction with this element of consultation initially timetabled for June 2022.' We hope that Mr Foden's commitment to the community will mean that discrimination against vulnerable groups ? at this location at least ? will be addressed, particularly if the Council allows access not only for blue badge holders, taxis and SEND vehicles, but also for healthcare professionals, including community nurses, midwives, GPs and carers.

And so it begins.....the confetti from their councillor victory parties not yet cleared away and here come the CPZs....at least some of us can say "Told you so..." How big is the zone they are brining in - Old Kent Road is a long road....I wonder what the traders there think. This is telling.....both in sense that of those that responded lot of people don't want it and that it looks like it will be 7 days a week after 6/12 months... Analysis of the responses shows that 65% do not support the introduction of a CPZ, while 35% are in support of the proposals. In response to the questions about operational hours, the majority of respondents preferred a scheme that operates from 8.30am to 6.30pm. Officers propose that the CPZ operates on weekdays only, subject to a review six to 12 months post implementation. And then this... The Council must prioritise kerbside space. Approximately 72% of trips starting in Southwark are by walking, cycling and public transport, with only 25% by driving. Providing space for those commuting into or around the borough with private cars is not a recognised priority. They don't say anything about anyone who might need their car for their job - visiting health workers, delivery drivers etc. They seem to be playing the "commuters driving from outside the area to commute nonsense" again.

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I pretty much knew that as soon as that Guardian > article was linked, Rockets would be along with > more "written by Peter Walker..." > > You could try reading the original piece of > research rather than the summary notes in the > newspaper: > > https://www.centreforlondon.org/publication/london > -low-traffic-neighbourhoods/ And lo and behold looking at the original report makes you realise why they took it to Peter Walker as an exclusive?.because they knew he wouldn?t give it any proper scrutiny and basically write what the authors wanted him to write?? Look at his article and the way he spends certain parts. Take the emergency service part. Let?s look at that section in the report?. Peter Walker says: They also said they had found no evidence that LTNs slowed down emergency vehicle response times, or that the schemes disproportionately benefited wealthier areas, saying people living inside LTN boundaries tended to have a similar demographic profile to those on boundary roads. But despite his claim this is what the report says? The London Fire Brigade reports that ?traffic calming measures? have been identified as the main reason for vehicle delay 3,035 times in 2021, up from 2,145 times in 2020. However, according to research on the response times conducted between October 2020 and February 2021 (after the introduction of the 2020 LTNs), LTNs didn?t lead to longer response times ? and this was true whether they used physical traffic filters or cameras.39 So, rather than Peter?s claim that the authors found no evidence of that LTNs slowed response what he should have said is that the report dismisses the Fire Brigades claims?.perhaps Peter didn?t read the report. Then you follow the links to the sources for the ?facts? they are reporting and you realise a large percentage of them come from fellow cycle lobbyist Rachel Aldred??.it?s basically an Aldred report by proxy. I very much suspect because her name has been tarnished by her pro-LTN funded research the approach is now to regurgitate her reports under someone else?s name. I wonder if some of this report was funded by the ?1.5m her university was awarded in January for more LTN research. In that vein you see who funded the report the Foundation for Integrated Transport, another pro-cycle lobby group whose mission statement opens with?.Humans Have A Right to Get About Without a Car??(under an image of a bike). Oh and it was part funded by Enfield and Lewisham councils?.big fans of LTNs. Come on Ex- it?s a fairly good indicator on the ?independence? of a report if Peter gets the exclusive and this is another good example of that. I honestly don?t know whether Peter actually sees the reports before he writes his stories as his stories paint a very different picture?.emergency services delays being a classic case in point.

"Exclusive" penned by Peter Walker....read into that what you will....surprised it doesn't mention Rachel Aldred anywhere in it....

Anyone else notice how bad the traffic coming down Lordship Lane towards Dulwich Library was the last few days due to the works to replace the traffic lights at the junction? It was tailing back all the way up Sydenham Hill and causing chaos on the A205.

The more strikes there are the worse the financial situation for TFL becomes and raises the likelihood of more cuts being necessary. The last strikes in March are estimated to have cost TFL ?13m so the new batch that kicked off today will deepen the hole TFL finds itself in.

I think the problem is trees often get cited as reasons for movement in houses - many years ago neighbours next to our old house came home to find their living room ceiling had partially fallen down and the insurance surveyor said that it was because of a tiny tree in the pavement taking moisture from the (clay) ground and that caused enough movement to create the ceiling collapse. Council had the tree removed very quickly thereafter.

Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So Brian and Co are you implying that Khan is > completely blame free? > Or that some blame can be apportioned to him and > some elsewhere ? > > As was said, the sooner TfL isn't used as a > political football, the better for users > 🙄 I think what Brian is saying, amongst other things, is that Khan made an election promise to freeze fares to help get elected and that was taking a political and financial gamble that backfired massively and now TFL is in a big mess.....but the blame for this all lies with central government. Khan was writing cheques he knew he couldn't cash and the Covid hit and the home he dug for himself opened up like a chasm. When people then try to pin the blame solely on government for TFL's woes it's a bit like listening to Corbyn trying to convince people it was the media that were the problem for his humiliating election defeat that left us with more Tory rule.

Remember rule number 1 in the left-wing playbook is if you make a right royal hash of things yourselves blame the Tories...your supporters will lap it up and bark it out like obedient dogs! ;-) TFL has been mismanaged for years and the last 6 years of that has been under Khan's watch so he has to take some of the responsibility for this - he is not blameless (despite what every Labour councillor and MP will have you believe). The problem is until such time as Khan and TFL shoulder some of the blame they will carry-on their destructive path of politically motivated transport policy setting that does nothing to benefit the people they are supposed to serve.

Waseley Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Apart from attack Southwark GLA and TfL do you > have any other opinions Mr/Mrs Rockets? You've > posted 100s if not 1000s of times and it appears > that 98 percent is along these lines. Sorry to be > so confrontational but eventually I had to break. Waseley - yes, there's a handy feature on the site, just click on my name and then click on see all previous posts and you can see the wide range of topics I have been posting on for the 15 years of posts I have made on the forum......and yes, you are very confrontational..but, to be honest, you have been since you arrived on the forum earlier this year. The sooner TFL stops being used as a political football by both sides the better it will be for Londoners and yes, I agree, the moment the Mayor becomes a non-political post the moment the Mayor actually starts representing Londoners properly.

I meant what was TFL doing to shore up their finances? Perhaps the Tories have decided to take a leaf out of Labour's playbook and deny everything, take no responsibility for their actions and always blame someone else....

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But let's compare TfL to a private company or a > Premier league football team, where if they were > in this much "trouble" the blame would be levied > at the head and not the shareholders so in my > mind, regardless of outside support that's been > supplied, the Mayor needs to accept his share of > the blame for what's happened during his watch and > accept the consequences rather then punishing the > users. > > It's not a private company though. > As a public transport authority, TfL gets all its > income from fares, commercial activity and income > from the Congestion Charge, grants (including > business rates) and from borrowing and cash > reserves (the latter was left in tatters by the > previous Mayor with a deficit of over ?1bn...) > > When fares income dried up during Covid there was > literally nowhere else to go to get any income > other than asking Government for a cash injection > (bailout / subsidy, call it whatever depending on > your view...) > > The Government has given several short-term > funding settlements but over the course of 2 years > of Covid, various lockdowns, instructions not to > travel etc, TfL was left short of about ?9bn and > Government funds can't come close to filling that > hole. So the funding they have supplied has come > with a load of caveats. > "We'll give you ?x million but you need to save ?y > million on...." > > You can negotiate against some of it (like the > proposed cuts to free travel for Under 18's) but > some of it is being forced through as a condition > of the funding. Doesn't matter who you have as > Mayor, that's the deal that Government is > offering. But what happened in the 4 years before the pandemic? Granted Covid decimated the cashflow for TFL but they also followed a disastrous path of devoting bus lanes to cycle lanes and creating massive issues for the bus network that has also led to a drop in passenger numbers. You can't pin everything on central government - TFL and the Mayor have to take some responsibility for the mess TFL are in but they won't - the left just doesn't do accountability - never has, never will....it's always someone else's fault.

Yes and he has been responsible for it since 2016, that's a long time so trying to blame the Tories seems the usual "find someone else to blame and shirk any responsibility or accountability" from the left (anyone noticed the full court, coordinated press to try to deflect attention away from TFL and Sadiq from lots of Labour voices today - talk about cut and paste social posts from the usual suspects....it's almost as if someone is telling them when to press post...? Despite the claims this is TFL making the cuts, the same TFL that is spending huge amounts of money on controversial projects like the Silverton tunnel. Love how Cllr Williams links to a petition that says Stop the Tory Cuts....he knows these are TFL/Labour cuts....but hey, never let the truth get in away of a good story.....

Does anyone else worry we are heading for the perfect storm in terms of London transportation: significant reduced frequency of trains, bus routes being cut, traffic chaos caused by the reallocation of road space (especially worrying has been the sacrifice of bus lanes to make cycle lanes)? I think transport planners need to look carefully at what is happening in the airline industry and realise that if you don't properly anticipate the return to some semblance of normality then it will bite you hard and it is the customer that suffers. It seems to me that London's transport infrastructure is beginning to creak and wobble and that, ultimately, impacts everyone and their ability to live, work and play in the city.