Rockets

Leave Jeremy Corbyn out of this - what has he done?!!! ;-)

cwjlawrence Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Folks, > If you've not read the Southwark Climate Strategy, > then I'd recommend reading it. Legalalien kindly > provided a link to it in a post on the Lounge: > > http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s89802 > /Appendix%201%20Climate%20strategy.pdf > > > Below is the excerpt from the Borough and Regional > Action section on Travel. > > @Rockets - where is the aim to reduce car usage by > 50% stated? I don't think it's in this strategy > document but please do correct me if I'm wrong. I > presume it's in another Council document - if you > could post the link then that would be great. > > Thanks, > Chris > > > Borough and Regional Actions > This strategy promotes action at a borough and > city level to make Southwark and London a greener > place to travel. Actions at this level include: > - Developing accessible, safe cycle ways and > walking paths > - Creating traffic free zones and pedestrianised > areas > - Building more electric charging points > - Providing accessible workplaces for cycling and > walking > - Encouraging employers to increase flexible home > working to reduce the need to commute > - Increase the use of hubs for home delivery of > goods to reduce delivery traffic > - Introducing a borough wide controlled parking > zone with higher charges for more > polluting vehicles and second vehicles. > - TFL to require all taxis to be EV's before 2030 > - Greater use of cargo bike schemes by regional > institutions. > - TFL and the council to make the temporary street > adaptions (including pavement > widening) following COVID 19 permanent > - Develop a small business grant for those who use > carbon neutral 'last mile' > distribution > - Implement a diesel surcharge of 50% > - Create 'diesel free zones' banning privately > owned diesel vehicles from using key > routes during core hours > - Ban privately owned cars from using key routes > during core hours > - Consolidate delivery sites to reduce daily > journeys by 50% > - Incentivise companies to electrify their vehicle > fleets > - Introduce a car parking levy on work placed car > parking > - Decarbonise the council?s fleet > - Move to new developments and regenerated estates > to being car free > - Continue reviewing tube stations to increase > accessibility > - Prioritise the air quality improvement actions > that also have a carbon reduction benefit. Chris I have read that 50% at least twice in two separate council documents but it's one of those I wished I had bookmarked. Cllr Livingstone quoted it on twitter and then I read it documents relating to their long-term plans. I think it was a 50% reduction by 2025 but I have read it twice so it definitely exists! ;-)

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > rahrahrah Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > I don't believe the council is talking about > > > eliminating private cars. No one is sensibly > > > suggesting this. > > > > > > We probably do need fewer cars on our streets > > > however and also fewer people driving short > > trips. > > > I'm not sure how anyone could really think > that > > > would be a bad thing to achieve. > > > > > > The council has stated its aim is to reduce car > > usage by 50%. > > So how is that 'eliminating private cars'? It is a very aggressive target that will need to involve reducing (significantly) car ownership in the areas with high car ownership - like Dulwich - but of course Dulwich has terrible PTAL scores so I think people are struggling to determine how they are supposed to get around (beyond their immediate locality) if the council is hellbent on cutting car usage by 50%.

The council meeting today was as depressing as it was predictable......the look on Cllr Rose's face when she tried to wrap the meeting up at 2pm and someone told her she had another 30 minutes before the event was due to end was a picture......

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't believe the council is talking about > eliminating private cars. No one is sensibly > suggesting this. > > We probably do need fewer cars on our streets > however and also fewer people driving short trips. > I'm not sure how anyone could really think that > would be a bad thing to achieve. The council has stated its aim is to reduce car usage by 50%.

I think School Streets would have been, by far, the most effective measure the council could have put in place to be a catalyst for modal shift but one that balanced addressing the problem in a way that didn't cause widespread negative impact on far more local residents than it benefits. Unfortunately the council seems to have been led down the garden path by a number of vocal residents (and these residents in Dulwich Village have very long garden paths leading to huge houses.....! ;-)) and lobby groups that convinced them shutting roads was the best way forward. Unfortunately, they worked the council into a frenzied excitement and no-one stopped to listen to what anyone else was saying about what was going to happen and the impact on areas away from the closed roads. Now they have created a complete mess that I am not sure they have the first idea how to even start to address it - they are like the proverbial deer in the headlights. It will be interesting to see how they perform during the council meetings today as today is the first time they have had to actually face people beyond their own echo chamber!

Kid - you are right - everyone acknowledges that things have to change but the more the council ignores the views of the majority of residents and tries to force these changes through the backdoor so people's feelings shift from a position of "let's discuss these changes and what can be done to improve them" to "tear the things out now". The council is seemingly trying to make any sort of opposition to this as difficult as possible and has fast lost control of the narrative and continually projects any opposition as a "small vocal minority" when most rational people realise it is anything but. Couple that with the "we don't care what anyone thinks we're doing it anyway" attitude and that galvanises even more opposition. What the council are doing with their approach is making their lives a lot more difficult for everything moving forward as people are, quite rightly, saying what else are they doing this with.

Who is actually in leading this process within the council - is it the local councillors, Cllr Rose or someone else? Do we know?

FairTgirl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think what you have uncovered here is quite > alarming for Croxted and Lordship Lane and EDG. > > For 2 hours a day in the am and 3 hours in the pm, > all traffic trying to get into DV from Croxted or > South Circular will need to do a big circuit > around DV and come in via these routes. > > The pressure on LL and EDG will be immense - and > EDG has so many schools on it that traffic will be > funnelled past. All deliveries, trucks, through > traffic all going past the same high streets, > houses and schools. > > The draw bridges are going up and nowt shall pass. > > DV shops trade to anyone other residents will die. > > Surely this flies against everything these Labour > councillors say they stand for and climate change > by sending cars on longer routes and creating yet > more congestion. > > Commend you for uncovering this Legalalien. > > > legalalien Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Yes but do note the expanded scope of the > closures > > they are now speaking to TfL about. I failed to > > notice this non the first read through, but it > > does look as though they are planning to expand > > Fortress Dulwich a little further (or at least > > shore up the defences...) Wow - what a find. Does this mean that no-one could drive to Dulwich Park during these times from the A205 or the picture gallery or tennis club? How can they be wasting our money like this....they don?t seem to have the first clue what they are doing and are throwing things and seeing what sticks. Classic local councillor vanity projects gone wrong to the expense of the public purse. If only we could ask our councillors tomorrow during the meeting did someone get this in to the pre-approved list of questions before that drawbridge was raised too.....;-)

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets- You have a point, if you know the school > perhaps you could contact the headteacher. They > may chose to alert parents. > > And neither the school nor the police could do > anything about it because, and I cannot stress > this enough, no offence is being committed. > > Rockets mentioned school plays, sports day etc > which I noted in my first post on the subject - > schools (and places of worship, shopping centres > etc) are private grounds and can set their own > rules. > > In public though, so long as it's reasonable and > decent, it's entirely legal to stand in a public > place and take photos or video. Whether you know > it or not you're on CCTV, traffic cameras, > dashcam, helmetcam, maybe a mobile phone cam or > even a drone cam - go to Dulwich Park and there's > often someone harmlessly flying a drone around the > place (no matter how annoying it might be!). We're > all probably in the background of God only knows > how many videos and photos from tourist places, on > beaches etc that have been uploaded to social > media. > > And ever since people have been complaining about > traffic, they've been taking photos of school > buses stuck on corners, traffic jams and so on, > posting them online and using those pictures to > prove whatever point they're making. > > On which point - if a similar video clip had been > taken by an anti-LTN group showing a line of > stationary traffic and kids walking to school > through a cloud of diesel fumes and using the > video to say how awful traffic was, would you be > similarly outraged? Yes I would but the anti-closure lobby don?t tend to post videos of identifiable school children going to school. And whilst you are right schools can set their own rules they are quite clear why they say you cannot post images of children on social media: safeguarding. Anyone who has children at school will be aware of this as it is front and centre of every school event.

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Correction. In your view it is not appropriate. > Although quite why you'd say that is questionable > since no-one is (easily) identifiable and even if > they are it shows fully dressed people behaving > normally and decently crossing a road. > > In the view of the law though, there is no offence > whatsoever that has been committed by filming that > and posting it to any social media site. Indeed, my view - thank you for correcting me. But I am pretty sure it is a view shared by most other parents of school-age children. Schools are very hot on this sort of thing and you can't go to school play, sports day or other event for being reminded that you shouldn't be posting pictures and videos on social media - it's sad but that's the reality nowadays. It seems though that if you are using school children to make a point about the effectiveness of road closures that all common-sense goes out the window and some people will defend it regardless! Legal - that FOI response does suggest that the Phase 1 DV closures may not have had the TMAN. I wholly suspect that the initial round of closures were put in at such haste that no-one actually read the rule book properly. It's plain for all to see that the emergency services were not properly consulted and I suspect there is someone in the legal department at the council advising our gung-ho councillors that there might be some problems with those Phase 1 closures and they are making sure they follow the guidelines to the letter on the Phase 2 and beyond. Would be interesting to see whether they did them for the Melbourne Grove closures as well.

It's not appropriate. The issue is of course the person is filming children walking to school without their permission and then posting it to Twitter (it then becomes Twitter's responsibility) - they haven't accidentally captured people in the background as they take a selfie they have deliberately filmed children walking to school for the sole purpose of posting it to the internet. Some of those children can be easily identified and as such they would need permission to post. I am not sure any of the parents or the school would be pleased to know someone had been filming their children.

Ex- sorry, you're wrong....it is deeply inappropriate to film children and post it on the internet. If someone was doing it in a public park people would intervene. It's not on and I am sure the parents of those children would not be at all happy to know someone was videoing them as they walk or cycle to school and posting it (whatever their intent in terms of usage).

That video, whilst obviously great because people are cycling and walking to school along the closed road, is pretty reflective of the pro-closure lobby's blinkered approach to all of this. If that camera was to pan 90 degrees to the left the picture would be oh so different....but I presume it's a case of what they don't see can't hurt them! ;-) Also, it's pretty blinkered of whomever captured that to film children (I presume from their house) as they walk to school....not sure the parents or school would be too happy to know that not only did they film it but they posted it on the internet. You cannot do that and I am surprised Clean Air for Dulwich don't know that.

The council's response is interesting - I do wonder if they are still pursuing a path of dividing and conquering and focusing their attention on getting support from residents on the roads that have been closed. The fact they reference the OHS "consultation" had the majority of local support is concerning because we know there have been worries that that consultation was deeply flawed and infiltrated by people, like cycle lobby groups, from outside the area and there were mass registrations from single households. It would be interesting to understand how the council will plan to use the address system as they have used this before (during the CPZ consultation)as a mechanism to filter and skew the results in their favour. The views of those who happen to live on a closed road should not be allowed to hold any more weight than those who are having to live with the displacement a mile further down the road. Remember that the much heralded Waltham Forest LTNs caused a permanent 28% increase in traffic on a road 3.1 miles away from the outer most edge of the LTN.

In a year we have come full circle on e-scooters - just over a year ago there was a lot of publicity about their safety and suitability following the death of the blogger Emily Hartridge who was killed whilst riding one. You're right they are illegal to own privately but ok to rent. I think the authorities want to see whether they can regulate the e-scooters sufficiently to reduce the risk of accident - the issue at the moment seems to be that some of the private e-scooters can go way too fast and the riders have no idea how to ride them. I was walking near Hyde Park Corner recently and saw a rider in a near miss as he was weaving his way across the lanes in between cars - he obviously had no clue how to ride it safely and was going way too fast. I was in Munich last year and they have them there to rent but they are, deliberately, very slow but the locals like to ride them (I saw a lot riding them from the railway stations to the office complexes) but hate the fact their streets are littered with the things as there has been an e-scooter gold rush as companies flock to try and make money from renting them and they tend to be abandoned on every street - they don't seem to have a central hub system like the Boris bikes.

ianjm Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lots of shouting, dogs, and about a dozen police > cars out the front right now (8:50pm) Sounds like a helicopter is up now too.

Just got this message from the ticketing company organising the ED LTN meetings on Friday: Get excited! Your event East Dulwich Experimental Highways Measures - Community Meeting is coming up soon! The excitement is building!

The milkman is definitely having something of a renaissance and I am all for it!

redpost Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I know that home delivery services act as > aggregators of goods and reduce traffic to varying > degrees depending upon the deliverees propensity > to use a car for shopping. > > The milkman of old days served the same purpose - > customers don't need to go down the shops for > milk > > The postman today serves the same purpose - no one > needs to go down the delivery office for post > > It can be proved formally with probability and > graph theory. But the milkman of old used to deliver everyone's milk in an electric vehicle and they did everyone's milk on the street. Now someone gets their milk from Ocado, another from Sainsburys, another from Tesco etc etc etc.....our street is filled with the constant sound of beeping supermarket vans reversing and that deep thudding of deliveries being unloaded in the back of a van. And everyone uses a different supplier. Now grocery deliveries are invariably a like for like replacement of a car journey but as legal says once you get into Amazon territory that's when the volumes increase massively. So net/net I am not at all convinced that home deliveries are reducing traffic at all, in fact the complete opposite is true.

Redpost - no because the pharmaceutical industry is held to much higher standards than other industries when it comes to the publication of such research - it has to be. So no, the paper heralding the greenness of the logistics industry, published in the logistics industry chartered institutes' house magazine, that is authored by a fellow of said chartered institute, that comes to no discernible conclusions, is full of if, buts and maybes and makes some glaringly obvious conclusions/overlooks some key factors to find the answer they want, that is so dated that it makes the info presented absolutely meaningless now - for example, how many delivery companies now return to the house to pick up unwanted parcels - is not the same status as an independently peer-reviewed article based on independently peer-reviewed research about a vaccine trial in The Lancet? Anyway, back to the original point - do you believe that home deliveries are not contributing to the increase in traffic on residential roads?

alex_b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets, it sounds like you?re accusing a number > of academics and their professional society of > research misconduct. Do you have any evidence to > demonstrate this or to counter the measurements > and assumptions they?ve set out in their report? Not research misconduct - your words not mine. I just understand how the research game works when it comes to outbound communications and how communications departments within groups like CILT use paid research. The first bow in any PR campaign's armoury is research...it's an extension of the well-known phrase: Lies, damned lies, and statistics...... Feel free to PM me if you want any more details on how it works.

Can someone who lives in the Goose Green ward please extend my thanks to Cllr McAsh for pushing to get this meeting in place? ;-)

Given the DV closures went in way before the ED closures it is interesting that this one goes first. Does anyone know why?

Redpost - I am sorry to pushback on your attempt to stereo-type and pigeon-hole but I hate the Daily Mail and all it stands for! ;-) Funny how that accusing people of being a Daily Mail reader becomes the go-to position for many when the questioning or debate doesn't go their way. They may be professors but it it is clear they were commissioned by the CILT to write the report...and I suggest the people who commissioned the report knew exactly what they wanted the research to show.....it's called a pay for play ....and it's like when Henry Kissinger addressed a group of journalists by saying: "Does anyone have any questions for my answers".