Rockets

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".

redpost Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > http://www.greenlogistics.org/SiteResources/343c53 > 12-af8f-4cc0-a271-4191cb2ccdff_Edwards-McKinnon-Sh > oppingTripOrHomeDelivery-FocusLogisticsJuly2009.pd > f > > 1) avg home delivery = 181 g of co2 > 2) dedicated bus trip to shop = 1265 g of co2 > 3) dedicated car trip = 4274 g of co2 Redpost - really......you are quoting stats from a report commissioned by the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport....that is about as balanced and believable as an article in the Guardian on LTNs penned by Peter Walker.....;-)

Redpost - firstly I didn't say everything bought online comes from Asia - you seemed to have interpreted that incorrectly. Secondly, you're basic math is just that. You're making the incorrect presumption that each home delivery purchase would equate to a single car journey. Which it doesn't. There is a whole different psychology to home shopping and it is designed to stimulate more, often unnecessary, purchases. Consider that the phenomenon of going on a shopping trip where people would get in their car and drive to a shopping centre or get on the train to go shopping in London is very much a thing of the past. People would go to a single venue and purchase many things from many different retailers and take them home with them. They don't do that anymore - it's why shopping centres are struggling and we have the whole concept of not only death of the high street but death of the out of town shopping centre. A new generation of shoppers will now forgo venturing outside of their house and go to those retailers online as 1) the pricing is often more competitive 2) they don't have to leave their home 3) it can be delivered in days (if not the same day) and 4) they avoid the wasted trip syndrome if the retailer doesn't have what they want. So it's not a simple as your maths suggests. People don't drive to 10 different places to buy 10 different goods but they will go to 10 different online retailers to have them delivered. Oh, and one of our memories must be fading as my Tulse Hill journey analogy was exactly that - if I remember correctly we were discussing journeys to and from Tulse Hill should the council proceed with their OHS folly of closing Dulwich Village to through traffic and effectively creating traffic chaos on the A205 etc - which oh, they didn't manage to get through via OHS but Covid instead...... If I have that wrong feel free to correct me ;-).

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Issue with deliveries are the amount of stuff that > is returned. No stats to hand but reducing the > amount of stuff being bought on spec and then > returned free of charge will all add up. > > There's lots of good stuff about consolidating > deliveries before the final destination, > increasing local deliveries by bike, and the use > of pick up points. Oh the howls of protests as > our streets become congested with e cargo bikes! Malumbu - I agree but rather ironically returns are far more efficient as they get funnelled into a single channel - most people have to return their goods via the Post Office or a Collect+ or equivalent store and often walk to do it. How many times have people been in the Post Office to find themselves behind someone with a bag full of parcels for return! ;-) Much more has to be done to solve the home delivery conundrum and all the major distributors are experimenting with drones (both airborne and road-borne) so they can take a larger vehicle that then distribute parcels for the last mile via drones and the like (the road drones aren't seen as a solution as they can get stolen). I would love to see more local deliveries by cargo bike but I suspect the selection of goods is the bigger challenge there - and if I am typical of most if I want something from Lordship Lane I walk there to get it myself! ;-)

redpost Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > i think you've got this very wrong pinning it on > delivery companies. > > Take DPD for example, they visit our street once a > day. The driver makes around 200 drops in the > area, driving short distances between stops. Often > dropping multiple parcels on one stop. Likewise > parcelforce & hermes. > > Occasional visit from the smaller couriers: DHL, > Fedex, UPS, city sprint etc > > And then white amazon vans (contractors), one drop > in the morning. A more dispersed drop in the > evening for same day delivery. > > Compare with everyone driving to the shops to make > a purchase, and you'll see that deliveries act as > aggregators and are very efficient. Software > calculates the optimum sequence of drops to > minimise distance even taking hills into account > (don't go up and down the same hill) > > Supermarket deliveries aren't so good, they can't > carry as many deliveries, are time limited (cold > ness) and don't have the density of drops. But > again, certainly a lot more efficient than > everyone driving to the supermarket. > > > > > > > > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > alex_b Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > redpost Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > it's not the 1960's any more, car > owenership > > > and > > > > usage are at all time highs > > > > > > I can?t find any data to support that. What I > > can > > > find (e.g. > > > > > > https://www.centreforlondon.org/reader/parking-ker > > > > > > > > > bside-mangement/chapter-1/#travel-habits-are-chang > > > > > > ing-but-modal-shift-is-slow) suggests flat or > > > slightly declining car ownership and usage in > > > London over the last 15 years. As someone > else > > > posted up thread there has been a dramatic > rise > > in > > > the use of residential roads in London > > coinciding > > > with the rise of navigation apps but these > seem > > to > > > be journeys displaced from major roads. > > > > > > Do you have anything to suggest that car > > ownership > > > or usage are at an all time high? > > > > > > Private car ownership in London has been > > decreasing for some time now (although the > further > > out of London you get where transport links are > > not as good and so the decline is slower). If > > anyone bothers to do any proper analysis I > think > > we will find that delivery companies are > > responsible for a lot of the "increase" in > > residential road use. A couple of > > Ocado/Tesco/Sainsburys vans and a couple of > Amazon > > deliveries on a quiet residential road can > > massively "increase" the % of daily usage for > that > > street. > > > > As shopping habits move online so the negative > > cost has been an increase in cars on side roads > - > > it gives the pro-closure lobby some nice > headline > > stats but scratch beneath the surface and you > can > > start to piece parts of the jigsaw together. > > > > I re-post the Guardian article I found over the > > weekend which digs deeper into London's > challenges > > with "cars" and the fact London's private car > > ownership is falling. > > > > > > > https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/11/h > > > > ow-london-got-rid-of-private-cars-and-grew-more-co > > > ngested-than-ever Home deliveries are not efficient, especially when they a delivering goods sourced in Asia and sent on incredibly polluting cargo ships. Online shopping invariably means people buy more which results in more deliveries being made - more often than not in high polluting diesel vehicles that are doing very short stop start journeys. Amazon is under huge amounts of pressure to stop same day deliveries due to the negative environmental impacts of the "I need it now" culture. Often they don't need it now they just want it now. Amazon, and other online retailers do little to stop multiple deliveries to the same address on any day. Your DPD example just illustrates the point. If that driver makes 200 drops in a given area I guarantee that most of that delivery driver's time is spent on side roads - that driver is contributing massively to the number of "journeys" made on sideroads - if they have 2 drops per road they will hit 100 different roads. I am convinced that private car journeys are decreasing but it is the shift to the home delivery culture that is creating the increase in vehicle journeys and I am not convinced that goes away if you close roads in the area.

alex_b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > redpost Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > it's not the 1960's any more, car owenership > and > > usage are at all time highs > > I can?t find any data to support that. What I can > find (e.g. > https://www.centreforlondon.org/reader/parking-ker > bside-mangement/chapter-1/#travel-habits-are-chang > ing-but-modal-shift-is-slow) suggests flat or > slightly declining car ownership and usage in > London over the last 15 years. As someone else > posted up thread there has been a dramatic rise in > the use of residential roads in London coinciding > with the rise of navigation apps but these seem to > be journeys displaced from major roads. > > Do you have anything to suggest that car ownership > or usage are at an all time high? Private car ownership in London has been decreasing for some time now (although the further out of London you get where transport links are not as good and so the decline is slower). If anyone bothers to do any proper analysis I think we will find that delivery companies are responsible for a lot of the "increase" in residential road use. A couple of Ocado/Tesco/Sainsburys vans and a couple of Amazon deliveries on a quiet residential road can massively "increase" the % of daily usage for that street. As shopping habits move online so the negative cost has been an increase in cars on side roads - it gives the pro-closure lobby some nice headline stats but scratch beneath the surface and you can start to piece parts of the jigsaw together. I re-post the Guardian article I found over the weekend which digs deeper into London's challenges with "cars" and the fact London's private car ownership is falling. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/11/how-london-got-rid-of-private-cars-and-grew-more-congested-than-ever

I think we can all agree that something has to be done about transportation links in the area, especially east/west. There is a reason why Dulwich performs poorly on PTAL scores and that is a lack of adequate public transportation through and across the area. And, to be honest, it's why many parts of Dulwich have changed so much over the last 20 years or so - the lack of good transport options kept house prices down until a point when the prices were too good to be overlooked for this close to London.

But Malumbu - not sure how you can discuss this without talking about politics. The decisions impacting Dulwich at the moment are political, being made by representatives of a political party that has zero opposition. Saying that the area needs political opposition isn?t a bad thing is it? Not sure how you suggest people divorce politics from this. Just because you don?t want to discuss the political element of this doesn?t mean other people don?t. Thus far you have told people not to talk about politics, or the influence of cycle lobby groups groups on local decision-making.....anything else you deem inappropriate for this forum.....?

Agree. But as we have seen time and time again common sense doesn't seem to prevail when it comes to Southwark council in Dulwich!

I think it is very telling that during weekends during this latest lockdown that the roads surrounding the park are crowded with parked cars and the park itself much more crowded. It's a very popular park and the catchment area is much broader than us residents who are able to walk to it.

rch Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Bear in mind that the Lib Dem candidate listed in > your link above owns a house directly behind the > closed DV junction, which overlooks her front > garden. > > I served as both a Tory and a Lib Dem councillor, > crossing over out of frustration, but had serious > issues with both manifestoes. However, I find the > Lib Dems in the north of the borough to be more in > tune with residents? views than those in the > south. Hence, I also found Nick Johnson?s article > intriguing. > > In my opinion, a split party government is the > best way forward, as one party with a serious > majority tends to railroad decisions through. > > Another option is to form an entirely separate new > political party... I completely agree - these decisions by our council are indicative of one that has no opposition. It was interesting during the recent Cabinet meeting that the two Lib Dem councillors from the north of the borough were saying that Sadiq Khan had done little for the residents in Southwark and listed a number of initiatives that had been cancelled by the mayor. Cllr Williams interjected and said they should not be political point-scoring and then he went into a passionate political point-scoring defence of Sadiq and all the good he had done...much nodding in agreement from the Labour councillors while the Lib Dems smiled..... Why did the council kill the green bus initiative...it sounds like an idea that this area is crying out for? RCH how should we be fighting these closures - the council seems to be doing everything in their power to silence any sort of debate about them? Southwark definitely needs some sort of opposition to ensure transparency.

You can see why the emergency services love things that block roads....imagine that police car is responding to your emergency call....blocking roads seems more and more foolish every day.....

Speaking of the Guardian a very interesting pre-lockdown article that looked at congestion, well worth a read..... This quote in particular stuck out for me in light of what we are seeing today with the LTNs... For McNamara, there is a clear class dimension to the debate: ?The myth of the anti-car lobby is that it?s someone in a Rolls-Royce flicking cigar ash out of the window at the cyclists. It?s the working class that are driving the commercial vehicles in central London, and they are being forced out by the wealthy inner-London elite, who can afford to live in Islington and want to ride their bike to St Pancras. They want to sit in Oxford Circus and drink their skinny caramel coconut latte without any thought about how the constituent parts got there. And they want something, they buy it on their phone and they expect it delivered the next day.? But then, as Travers says: ?The truth is that almost everyone using the streets ? cabs, buses, pedestrians and cyclists ? has a sense of entitlement.? https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/11/how-london-got-rid-of-private-cars-and-grew-more-congested-than-ever?__twitter_impression=true

sally buying Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What is not mentioned regarding these photos is > that many of these estates were built 70 years ago > and these estate roads went nowhere except round > the estate. > > Also when they were built people did not own > motorcars in any number. > > They have always been LTN's due to where they are. > > > Southwark made many of these estate roads one way > many many years ago. Exactly. Trying to suggest that these are comparable to the closing of the DV junction or any other through routes by the person who wrote the EDSTN thread is beyond tenuous! Unless of course they are trying to suggest that people used to drive around the estates for the hell of it!!! ;-) I do wonder if the author wanted to try and make a point that LTNs are not just a trapping for the super affluent but failed miserably in their attempt. That one picture with the bike on the top floor balcony really demonstrated how some of these pro-closure lobbyists really need to step out of their privileged lives in their huge houses in one of the most affluent parts of London and apply these closures from everybody else's purview......can you imagine trying to get a cargo bike up the stairs of those flats!

Ex- I think what both those twitter threads demonstrate is that there are absolute numpties on both sides of the argument ;-) Legal - the council are trying to move away from actual monitoring and are suggesting modelling is the way they are going to determine the success (or otherwise) - there are very limited monitoring stations in place and many of them went in after the closures went into place (the council originally only put monitoring in on the closed roads like Court Lane and Calton Avenue and nothing went in on the roads soaking up the displacement). It's why I was asking this question of Cllr McAsh; he was unable to provide any answers to where monitoring went and in and when - he had been asking the council but could not get an answer. It is very interesting that the Guy's charity running the 3 LTNs in Southwark has insisted to the council that ?50,000 of the money is invested in actual monitoring so they can properly assess the displacement. To your other point I also noticed a lot of traffic queuing through Dulwich Village when I was on an early morning run - I think a lot of people are trying to get through by 8am. I also noticed on the run the point someone else made that the signage is not at all clear. I ran along Gallery Road from the A205 and there are no signs until you get to the roundabout and I suspect many drivers are seeing the timed road closed signs on the roundabout and then turning left down Burbage and are not seeing the closed sign on Burbage as it is obscured by that very tight left hand turn.

On the subject of blocking has anyone else noticed that The Guardian seems to have turned off comments on LTN articles? Or was it that you could only ever leave comments on Opinion pieces?

For those of you who have managed to have been blocked by the EDSTN Healthy Street propaganda machine here is the text from the thread.....pictures attached of the various access roads on the estates they have photographed......if you look very, very carefully you can just about see a single bike on the top floor balcony of the flats in the picture of the WMAM2asp.jpeg....thereby very visually illustrating why a large percentage of the local population will struggle to switch to bikes..... This EDSTN thread seems to be trying to make a rather spurious connection between access roads on our local estates and LTNs on Court Lane and Calton Avenue..... Anyway, the award for the most tone-deaf twitter thread of 2020 goes to......read on....;-) We love our new LTN, but did you know that Southwark has over 52 existing road filters already in place- one of the highest in London? In Dulwich many of Southwark?s estates have had extensive filtering for many years. Rather than LTNs being a new thing, it seems that our housing estates have long been trailblazers for safer & quieter streets. These estates have quiet streets, green space, with some currently getting new playgrounds and pavements / ramp access. So why is no one clamouring for the removal of these filters? Mainly it?s that they?ve been in place for years and the benefits are clear. They?re not even thought of as LTNs any more, though that?s how they were designed. LTNs need time to bed in, they need improving where necessary but they have a long history of being successful in Southwark.

This EDSTN Healthy Streets twitter thread........;-)

Indeed but I think in Dulwich more people are aware as people's daily lives are being impacted (given the large % of car ownership) and I think that is why One Dulwich have so much support - likely to become even more when the fines start coming in through the new timed closures. It was interesting that in the last One Dulwich email they promised to alert people to how they register their comments about the closures when the council opens up the "consultation and feedback" period. It is not in the interests of either the council or the pro-closure lobby to have broad awareness of the steps needing to be taken to register thoughts. I think that was why OneDulwich were very cleverly putting flyers on cars in Dulwich over the summer - alerting people to a resource that could help them if they don't like the changes. It's also why the What's App fuelled awareness of the Southwark e-petition led to so many local residents signing it. expect a similar thing to happen when the consultation process starts. The pro-closure lobby twitter feeds don't get any traction - they seem to be followed by the same group of pro and anti-closure lobbyists so they aren't moving the needle - they are either talking to themselves or their opponents. The challenge in any sort of debate like this is for the council and pro-closure lobby to try and ride out the storm of negative publicity and hope people get used to the changes, lose interest in the fight and can't be bothered to find out more. For the anti-closure lobby they have to try and keep the issue front of mind for the most number of people to get them to register their objections and lobby the council for change. The things you are doing will be annoying the hell out of the council and pro-closure lobby as it is shining a light on the process (so keep it up! ;-)). In previous council consultations constituent ignorance has been the council's bliss! I very much sense that has changed now.

Also the Guys and St Thomas' project is far better thought out and it looks like the implementation is going to be far better than the council ones to date. The charity is insisting on displacement analysis - which could be interesting and finally produce some granular data on what displacement does/does not actually occur. I actually think that any prior consultation will only apply to new programmes and this one has been in the council purview for some time. I think the council has rolled out all the phases in Dulwich super quick so they can get them in before the government forces them to, heaven forbid, consult with local residents! ;-) If Commonspace is to be the mode by which they consult this will explain why many of the pro-closure twitter handles encourage people to register their support via Commonspace.

Point 19 is interesting. Consultation with residents via Commonplace during the period of the ETMO. Is this the means by which the council will consult on all LTNs moving forward? The government made it clear (according to Peter Walker of The Guardian fame) that there needed to be prior consultation.

Me too - it's good to see them coming back.