Rockets

And we must remember that the Councillor leading these efforts is the very same Councillor who went door to door when news of the DV closure became public warning his constituents that the DV closure would mean increases in traffic on EDG and Melbourne Grove and whether they would like him to have their road closed for them.......

Agree, and they are clutching at anything they can to try and deflect from the anti-Tory mood board. I hate to credit the Tories but it is a political master-stroke as, if people start to buy it, then it puts Labour in a tight spot and makes transport policy the key election issue. If people don't buy it then the Tories are hosed but they were hosed anyway - a wounded political animal will do odd things. And Legal and FM are absolutely right, the national agenda is very relevant to the local agenda (and FM yes the govt and councils will start coming for electric cars - they will start paying roadtax from 2025). Councils like Southwark used the national agenda (Covid) to mould and manipulate the process for implementation of LTNs, CPZs etc - and they were able to hide a multitude of planning sins under the umbrella of social distancing and emergency orders. But now the Tories have clearly declared war on those who initiated the "war on cars" and the worm will likely turn because all of those planning sins could now come under scrutiny and analysis and whilst local councils won't care too much Labour HQ will because they will not want to see Labour councils getting scrutiny that adds fuel to the Tory "there's a war on cars and Labour are the ones initiating it" rhetoric. How ironic that Boris' demise has seemingly given the Tories their platform for the election.

If their question set is anything like the questions they asked in the consultation it might make for some interesting and stilted discussions!...."I am sorry resident but there is no facility to record your opposition to the CPZs you can only tell me how long you want them to run for every day...." Does anyone think this street sampling might be the council's ploy to satiate the need for a "legal consultation"? If so then we have every right to be suspicious....

Let's hope the households are randomly selected and not just those on the Labour membership list......as we know Southwark Labour targeted those Labour households when they went out to remind people about the LTN consultations......;-)

Has anyone asked Cllr McAsh what the reason is for his ward not getting the CPZ - is he just trying to ring-fence and protect his political career/longevity? As cabinet member behind the grand CPZ plan it does seem a little odd that he chose not to roll it out in his ward and I wonder how his councillor colleagues in those affected wards feel about this. It does also seem strange that the very ward where the council has told us previously that there is the pressure on parking is not part of the plan........all a bit strange.

Councils have been removing parking spaces for ages - the extension of double-yellow lines to the maximum permissible in Dulwich over the last few years is a prime example - in a desperate attempt to create parking pressures to help justify CPZs. The laughable thing is the only ward not getting a CPZ is the ward where there are some parking pressures due to the proximity to the Lane...go figure...

70 fines issued to red light jumping cyclists Malumbu...thats good news they are enforcing the rules though isn't it because red light jumping cyclists are a danger to themselves and other road users? Aren't they? I have being saying for a long time that this type of enforcement is the only thing likely to stop the persistent abusers of the rules and I hope something similar is done at junctions like Dulwich Library where red light jumping is a daily/hourly occurance.

And 70 PCNs for red light jumping cyclists at that one junction would suggest the article is not biased but that the police are trying to tackle anti-social behaviour at that junctiom much of which is red light jumping cyclists....surely Malumbu it is good that the police are taking steps to ensure the rules of the road are obeyed by everyone and that they are issuing fines for cyclists too?

Looks like some parts of the city are taking action: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/police-lycra-louts-jumping-red-lights-in-the-square-mile-b1108748.html?utm_source=newsshowcase&utm_medium=discover&utm_campaign=CCwqFwgwKg4IACoGCAowqvB9MMTRCTDIhdcBMOW8uQI&utm_content=related

As I was saying - the Tories are trying to create a "we support the car driver" narrative and actually, in terms of lifting the ban on petrol and diesel sales, this will do little to impact the direction of travel for the car industry - they are well on the EV path already - it's just a Tory tactic to try and heap pressure on Labour as they have stuck themselves clearly to the anti-car/in favour of active travel mast and the Tories clearly feel this is an Achilles heal for them - as Uxbridge demonstrated a pro-car agenda (rightly or wrongly) will get more votes. The leak of Sunak's change was clearly done by the Tories as a kite-flying exercise so they could assess how people were reacting and course-correct if necessary. Their polling must have suggested it was creating the impact they wanted. BTW VW just dropped the price of an ID3 to $18,000 (£15,000) in China yet exactly the same car starts at £36,000 in the UK - this is how much pressure the incumbents are under. Even Tesla keeps dropping their prices in China.

Have we seen the results of the council's "consultation" on the CPZs or is it still running?

Bottom-line is that the catalyst for the electrification of car models is not being driven, pardon the pun, by bans on sales of petrol and diesel cars and climate change agendas but by the very real threat posed to EU car manufacturers, and those who sell cars in Europe, by their Chinese counterparts and brands like Tesla - who embraced EVs in a way the incumbents didn't.

The problem is this has now become THE political hot potato and this was inevitable - it's a ludicrous decision but the Tories are clutching at whatever they can. Travel, and particularly that done by car, is going to become a major, if not the major, manifesto item for all parties whether they want it or not - and all of this was born in the Uxbridge by-election and the mess it created for Sadiq and Keir. I know there is another thread on 20mph in Wales but those types of decisions by Labour administrations will now become part of the election narrative. I was recently travelling along the elevated section of the Westway and that is now 20mph - which is utterly ludicrous but a very real example to everyone about what happens when ideology gets in the way of pragmatism - and this stuff sticks, which is why the Tories are making such a huge issue about motoring. They have clearly done their research that if you want to try and get people onside show them you are the champion for the driver - it will probably win you votes (at a time when they are desperate for any votes at all) and it puts Labour in a challenging position - as Labour found to theirs, and our, cost in 2019 the Islington Corbynites are not at all reflective of the lives or views of the majority and in most parts of the country people rely on their cars far more than us Londoners do.

And that does seem to be a key point that many, like megalaki84 fail to acknowledge. This overly-simplistic mantra of "you don't need a car" may apply to those saying it but doesn't necessarily apply those they are saying it to. Given a car may be the most, or second most, expensive purchase someone ever makes you can be pretty sure that they definitely need one - people don't make that sort of outlay without determining whether they need it or not.

DKHB - do you expect every group who tries to have a voice in local debates to publish their funding and membership details? Are you asking the same of Mums for Lungs or Clean Air Dulwich? And to be fair...your definition of sealioning could well be applied to many of those who support the measures too! 😉

Similar experience for me. Only word of advice is to make sure everything is clearly listed when you make the booking and check their guidance on what you can and can't put outside.

The traffic "evaporated" apparently.......and then condensed again onto roads like the South Circular, Croxted and East Dulwich Grove......the "main roads are built for it" was the nonsense narrative the council tried to peddle when their promise of less traffic for all never materialised.

If your cat is like our cat then I am sure it will go and sit itself on the bench next to the barbed wire just to troll your neighbour! 😉

Yes you have to admit that when you hear the likes of Cllr Leeming spouting forth this nonsense you know full well that the hole they have dug themselves is so deep that they have to abandon the socialist ideology that they purport to champion.

Between strike days and engineering works there is very little weekend service at the moment.

At least they responded, ask the council for anything in relation to LTNs or CPZs and they ignore you...

One Dulwich have sent their latest update. One Dulwich Campaign Update | 9 Sep What Southwark is now saying about the Dulwich LTNs As you know, we met Cllr James McAsh (who took over from Cllr Catherine Rose as the Council’s decision-maker on LTNs) in June, and raised our continuing concerns about missing data, traffic displacement, delays to buses, the impact on local shops and businesses, and discrimination against people with disabilities. Cllr McAsh said he would respond within two months, and we received his reply on 24 August. Basically, he hasn’t budged an inch. It seems more important to him to avoid disagreeing with his predecessor’s decision than to address the very real problems that these LTNs are causing in the Dulwich area. There are three key revelations from Cllr McAsh summarised in three reports on our website: 1) traffic count data - the baseline data is “not a perfect comparison” with post-LTN data, so it’s impossible to tell if the LTNs have reduced or increased traffic; 2) air quality data cannot be reliably linked to specific local interventions, so it’s impossible to tell if the LTNs have improved or worsened air quality; 3) discrimination continues against those who have disabilities, or who are frail or housebound (and all those who care for them), as the Dulwich Village junction remains closed 24/7 all but emergency vehicles. We have written to Cllr McAsh asking why he has so singularly failed to respond to the issues we raised in our meeting. We will now pass all this information on to the Prime Minister’s review of LTNs. Separately, we are seeking advice about how the Council’s failure to take into account the needs of those with disabilities can be challenged. (Please get in touch if you have any expertise or experience in Public Law and can help with this.) Please also encourage friends, family and neighbours to join us. We are continuing to campaign because there is no evidence at all that the Dulwich LTNs are meeting the Council’s aims to reduce traffic, make our air cleaner, increase active travel or improve road safety. The Council is not looking after the needs of the Dulwich community. Best wishes, The One Dulwich Team

Earl - your statement on not adding pollution is a complete fallacy as they will create pollution when they are created. This narrative we hear about "pollution-free" solutions is utter nonsense as anything that is made (like these bike hangars) will have a detrimental environmental impact. It's like when people say Lime bikes are pollution free...well expect for when they were made or when they were charged or when you brake or accelerate using the motor. Of course, it's less than a car belching out fumes but don't kid yourself that the infrastructure built to support your POV "don't add pollution". The overall argument of people trying to justify CPZs on the basis of the space cars take on the public realm is as flawed as it is blinkered as it is contradictory. But if people want to go down that route good luck to them but it only leads to a contradictory, hypocritical cul-de-sac.

Malumbu - nor is on-street parking - what point are you trying to make? At every turn you seem to be undermining, rather than supporting, the original ludicrous assertion about trying to justify charging people to use public roads to park. It's not pro-car or anti-bike - rather it's demonstrating the foolishness and flaws in the original, not well thought-out or constructed argument posited by the two-time poster @DesignThinking (see below)......come on admit it, which one of you created that account after buying and having a stab at Adobe Illustrator.....;-) I think Design Thinking should be thinking more about their designs....;-) By that measure would a cycle hoop be worth what, about £15,000 - £20,000? Don't tell the council as they will want to charge for them as well!!!

Mr Chicken this comes down to a mix of council incompetence, ideological blinkeredness and a failure to admit they can get anything wrong - those things are very dangerous when combined and can probably explain why we are where we are. But I do love the idea of an ironic implementation! 😉