Rockets

Yup SW London is awful - could never understand why people thought some of the areas right under the approach were great places to live - once the flaps and gear get down fully the noise generated is increased massively. And you're right, nowadays they would never allow an airport in an area of a city that required approaches over densely populated areas 70% of the time

Malumbu, they're not excuses they're facts and if the you aren't basing the measures on facts then you have no idea the problem you are trying to solve and, unfortunately, so much of what we have seen from council/s is based on nothing more than guesswork or the word of lobby groups when if they actually spent time identifying the cause of the problem they might do a better job solving it.

Malumbu, have I ever said anything that suggest I am ignoring any of those facts - this is just another example of your, increasingly desperate, attempts at distraction (with a healthy dose of name calling - not sure how anything in the recent threads suggest I am prejudiced). I am talking about the political fallout from the expansion decision and that political fallout won't abate in 14 days - it will probably get worse. In line with that did anyone else notice in the Standard article the DoT returning the "they made us do it" serve from some about who was responsible for the outer borough expansion: It comes as the Department for Transport confirmed that claims the Government ordered City Hall to expand the Ulez Londonwide are false. An excerpt from a letter to the mayor, from then Transport Secretary Grant Shapps in May 2020, was widely circulated on social media ahead of last month’s High Court ruling that allowed the Ulez expansion to proceed. Many people wrongly interpreted the paragraph that required Mr Khan to “urgently bring forward proposals to widen the scope and levels” of road charges in London as a condition of the Government’s first bailout of Transport for London. In fact, the letter was referring to the reintroduction of the C-charge – which had been switched off by the mayor at the start of the pandemic – and his proposed Ulez expansion from central London to the boundaries of the North and South Circular roads, which went ahead in October 2021. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-66521469 The game of political tennis continues... I didn't realise there were plans to introduce a toll to use the Blackwall Tunnel coming in to play.

Mr Chicken - instead of throwing stones why don't you join the debate? You seem awfully keen to criticise and demonise yet never actually engage - the moment there's any discussion or debate you always go all purple-Minion on us....it's almost as if you don;t want any debate on the subject So let's see if we can get this back on track shall we....? There is definitely a problem with the private schools - just look at where the foundation buses come from which shows the catchment area for the schools in Dulwich is the whole of London https://www.dulwich.org.uk/foundation-schools-coach-service/regular-routes (see below). Invariably that means many people will also drive - how do you encourage them to stop doing it - these probably aren't journeys that can be done by walking or cycling or public transport easily. Should the schools be encouraging more bus use - perhaps subsidising the journey cost (maybe Clean Air Dulwich should also stop attacking the schools for the bus services they offer as they are trying to fix the clean air problem so surely they should be pleased about that?). Now for the state schools we all know it shouldn't be a problem but it is - has the council/schools taken any time to understand why? If not, why not. Surely, rather than moving the problem from street to street they should understand the cause and try to resolve that. State school catchment areas should be walkable/cyclable but why do so many people drive - I do know that when the baby boom was at its height in Dulwich places at schools were at a premium and often people were placed at schools some way from their homes but the problem is much bigger than it should be? Central and South West London C1 BAYSWATER / KENSINGTON / CHELSEA / CLAPHAM Serves all schools C2 BOROUGH / VICTORIA / PIMLICO / STOCKWELL / BRIXTON Serves all schools C3 TOOTING / BALHAM / CLAPHAM / BRIXTON Serves JAGS and Alleyn's only C4 WANDSWORTH / CLAPHAM Serves JAGS and Alleyn's C5 TOOTING / BALHAM / CLAPHAM Serves DC and DPL only C7 FULHAM / WANDSWORTH Serves DC and DPL only C9 TOOTING/BALHAM Serves all schools CX KENNINGTON / CLAPHAM / STREATHAM HILL Serves all schools S3 WIMBLEDON / RAYNES PARK / MITCHAM / STREATHAM / UPPER NORWOOD Serves all schools W1 BATTERSEA / CLAPHAM / WANDSWORTH Serves all schools W2 CHELSEA/ BATTERSEA Serves all schools W3 WANDSWORTH / CLAPHAM Serves all schools W4 PUTNEY / WANDSWORTH Serves all schools W5 FULHAM / CHELSEA / CLAPHAM Serves all schools W6 WANDSWORTH / CLAPHAM Serves Alleyn's and JAGS only W7 WANDSWORTH / CLAPHAM Serves all schools WX WANDSWORTH / CLAPHAM Serves DC and DPL only Bromley and Outer London B1 KESTON / ORPINGTON / BROMLEY / SHORTLANDS Serves all schools B2 CHISLEHURST / BROMLEY / PENGE / SYDENHAM Serves JAGS and Alleyn's only B3 ADDINGTON / WEST WICKHAM / BECKENHAM Serves DC, JAGS & Alleyn's S2 SUTTON/PURLEY/SOUTH CROYDON/ ANERLEY Serves all schools East and South East London G1 BLACKHEATH / LEE Serves JAGS and Alleyn's morning and afternoon and Dulwich College mornings only G5 BLACKHEATH / LEWISHAM Serves JAGS and Alleyn's only G2 BLACKHEATH Serves DC and DPL only G3 GREENWICH / BLACKHEATH / LEWISHAM Serves all schools G4 BLACKHEATH Serves JAGS and Alleyn's only C6 CANARY WHARF / WAPPING / SHAD THAMES / NUNHEAD Serves all schools C8 BERMONDSEY / ROTHERHITHE / SURREY QUAYS Serves all schools Foundation Schools’ Coach Service, Dulwich College, London SE21 7LD

Do we understand why people drive their kids to school, it can't all be laziness? I suspect most of us walked to school but back then the school was at the end of the road. Has anyone surveyed school drop drivers to understand why they do it - perhaps rather than just asking people not to do it we need to understand why they do it and look for solutions based on addressing those needs? Given Dulwich'ites walk so much why do so many kids get dropped by car - and the problem seems to be shared equally between state and private. I know Goodrich has always been a problem and so has St Anthony's - has there been a problem at Heber and the like? If not, do we know why?

As I suggested previously It's causing significant political fallout - Labour front-benchers are turning on Khan and so, amazingly, is XR - not sure anyone had that down as something that was likely to happen. It seems, according to Hallam, that only the "urban middle class neo liberal left" like the idea of ULEZ or as we like to call them locally Clean Air Dulwich........;-) (sorry couldn't resist)....

It's all getting a bit uncomfortable now... https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/london-ulez-expansion-charges-labour-sadiq-khan-jonathan-ashworth-b1100694.html And meanwhile (and apologies for posting something from that rag) things you thought you'd never read.....(but does anyone on here identify as an urban middle class neo liberal leftie...;-)) https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12404331/Extinction-Rebellion-founder-Roger-Hallam-slams-urban-middle-class-neo-liberal-Left-Sadiq-Khans-ULEZ-expansion-condemns-scheme-intrusive-regressive-lowest-paid-Londoners.html

And her role in that alone should have precluded her from going anywhere near funded research into LTNs. We all know it, even the most ardent defender of LTNs must, deep down, think that is a serious conflict of interest. And you can't take Anna Goodman's work seriously after her poster episode and again she should be nowhere near any "independent" funded research into LTNs. She has shown she is anything but impartial when it comes to LTNs. But no, many LTN supporters will say...no,no, no this is all perfectly normal and acceptable and go into defend to the hilt mode...but deep down they must know it's not right and highly questionable.

Very much for school streets....very much against displacement and moving the problem elsewhere...if you don't tackle the problem you can never fix the problem - just moving it to the next closest street is not fixing the problem.

Of course it is. She is part of the cycle lobby and has held positions in it. She should be nowhere near anything to do with anything active travel that claims to be independent. As I said earlier she declares it as a conflict of interest in many of her reports so she must feel it could be an issue - just shame those commissioning these reports aren't doing their due diligence...or perhaps they don't care because they also have a vested interest to prove their ideas work. Activist research is a dangerous thing that is great when it works and no-one pays any attention but it can go off the rails very quickly when people start to scratch beneath the surface. The house of cards falls very quickly when those in power start distancing themselves from the mess they created.

You weren't at the meeting we you...then you have no skin in this game at all because you clearly do not know what you are talking about? The vast majority of the people at the CPZ meeting at the Library (both inside and outside the venue) all those years ago were against it - anyone who was there (and I was) will tell you that but, you know, don't let the truth get in the way of a good story and all that! 😉

Mr Chicken - your distraction approach isn't working (either that or you're clearly missing the point entirely). Isn't having Aldred involved akin to asking someone from the motor industry to write the review? She may have knowledge but she has a clear vested-interest (that she declares on many of her research papers). The tobacco industry has knowledge but you would not want them leading a review on the harms of smoking would you?

Mr Chicken - did you attend the first CPZ meetings all those years ago? If you had you would have seen for yourself the shambles when the council massively misjudged the feeling against the CPZs and had to keep people outside because of over-crowding - that ain't a conspiracy theory - it's fact. Did you also attend the Melbourne Grove LTN online meeting where the council only took questions from Clean Air Dulwich, sorry I meant select Melbourne Grove residents and forced anyone else into the chat room!? There's more than enough evidence to suggest the council manipulates these events and platforms (remember the extension of the LTN consultation period and then Labour doorstepping Labour supporters to respond positively?) to their advantage so don't be surprised when people question how they manage and execute things.

Ex- you're right, transport does get it worse...the nepotism and insiders-only approach is horrendous. It's an incestuous closed shop of active travel activists all of whom have roles both setting and marking the homework. The point remains does anyone think it's a good idea having researchers like Rachel Aldred and Anna Goodman being part of the independent review into LTNs? One was policy lead for the London Cycling Campaign, the other has history of tearing down anti-LTN posters - doesn't suggest to me that they would be totally impartial? That has always been a problem and the Sustrans involvement is another big issue - does anyone think it is healthy having a group lobby for, consult on, get paid to deploy LTNs and then be contracted to be part of the review of LTNs - that's the very definition of a vested interest.

...problem moves to Friern Road now....the displacement continues...

Yes the Tories are doing that because they saw what happened in Uxbridge - they're desperate. But the interesting point is not that, it's the fact that the cosy, nepotistic world of active-travel/cycling lobbying, councils, researchers, journalists and consultants is going to get a spotlight shone on it. It is utter madness that it was allowed to get this far to be honest.

Please no Wagamama's! Lordship Lane is starting to resemble an airport departures zone as it is already!

This is interesting. The Times reporting that the govt is putting pressure to determine if the likes of Rachel Aldred are independent enough to be involved in conducting reviews into LTNs - but is says the review will continue. It is clear many involved have clear conflicts of interest and it is amazing it has been allowed to go on for as long as it has where lobbyists act as the reviewers as well. https://twitter.com/VincentStops/status/1690999995439153152?t=_AxWkPIzeD8nqeCwJnlG0w&s=19 Some highlights from the article (which can be found in the link): The transport secretary has asked officials to examine how research into low-traffic neighbourhoods and other policies can be "genuinely independent" amid concerns that studies are being conducted by people whose opinion might prejudice their work. And Anna Goodman's moment of stupidity with the anti-LTN poster gets called out as well. Very interesting as well was this part on Sustrans which highlights the ludicrousness of contracting an organisation to review the schemes that was involved in both lobbying for them and then paid to implement them - not only are you allowing the pupils to mark their own homework they were allowed to set the questions too!!: Another subcontractor for the study is Sustrans, a charity that promotes cycling and walking. This year The Times revealed how Sustrans had actively lobbied for LTNs and received contracts with millions for councils to design and implement the schemes.

The very first set of East Dulwich CPZ meetings years ago were an utter shambles there, people were lining the stairs and there were accusations that the council had tipped supporters off to get there early to fill the seats. I am pretty sure the council committed to finding bigger venues for future meetings on the back of that experience - so it makes you wonder why they are returning there. I wonder how many people are on the waitlist - I wonder if there are sufficient numbers to force the council to run another meeting? Is anyone planning to attend? BTW just looked on the "consultation" link on the Southwark site and it says "informal consultation". Does anyone know whether that has always how it has been referred to or whether the informal part has been added recently - if so it may suggest the council is going to be forced to run a second consultation when people can express whether they want them or not? I can't help but think that the council is tying themselves in knots over this and their efforts to try and force this through without a proper consultation could backfire (and I am convinced the judge's remarks in the ULEZ review are influencing the new direction of travel as he was critical of the robustness of the consultation). https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/dulwich-hill-streets-for-people-consultation/

There was a long thread on the topic with a lot of detailed explanations but: with a westerly wind we get planes heading on approach to Heathrow and they will be somewhere near 4,000 ft above us and the noise will be dependent on a lot of factors like cloud base and how strong the wind is and whether they are transitioning flaps, have landing gear down (which would be unusual this far out) etc - most of the noise you hear is the air over the airframe of the plane as the engines are pretty much idle (unless it is blustery and the engines are spooling for additional power). When the wind is an easterly you will get planes heading into City airport and they will be much lower in their approach (they head from here and slingshot around the Shard for their approach into City) and often they are noisier as they are much lower and also more likely to be transitioning flaps (the old BAE 146 that used to be used a lot at City used to howl as the flaps transitioned with a very distinctive sound).

Malumbu - that's an, ahem, interesting take on a title for a thread. Is there nothing you don't feel the need to police - from now onwards perhaps you should rename yourself P.C. Malumbu.....? 😉

The Southwark zero-concession policy on things like this is very un-Labour (but not an isolated incident) and I do hope they do a U-turn on this as well. Some members of the council seem to be letting their personal ideology on cars get in the way of their socialist principles.

The world does not need any more Gail's......there are way too many already....;-)

The first thing delivery companies ask nowadays is "do you have controlled parking on your street", as they know the problems it causes for them and the increased risk of them getting pinged by a council eager to earn some revenue! Definitely centrist nowadays - well if Keir has his way at least - it seems embracing champagne socialism is making a big comeback - Cllr McAsh will be gnawing his teeth as he smiles! 😉 - actually having an ex-city sugar trader as a councillor colleague must really test his Marxist beliefs!!! On this - recently overheard in a Dulwich eatery two families discussing how they will both be in their houses in Cornwall at the same time so should get together.....Dulwich is definitely changing...and I am not sure for the better..... but that might be a thread someone needs to start! 😉

It would be interesting to know how Lime (and others) are being used - I sense the majority are being used for very short journeys that are either taking modal share from walking or, in central London, public transport. Has there been any research into that? No and they won't go under because their business plan will be quite clear that they will run at a loss for a long time until they own the market exclusively and then they can gradually raise prices to become profitable (it's how they raised $1.5bn in funding before going public). I think Uber only has a minority stake anyway. There is a lot riding on this for them so hence their request for 10,000 more bays in London and exclusivity......but you need competition to keep prices low so Sadiq won't fall for that ruse!