Rockets

Of course they are great for those who enjoy using them but an inconvenience and eye-sore when they are left strewn all over the streets. And be careful when you say they are non-polluting as those battery packs don't charge themselves...and they can only be a net benefit if the modes they are replacing are more polluting; if they are replacing walking then they are worse for health and the environment! As a cyclist I always think using anything electric is cheating - if no effort is required then what's the point! 😉

Ha ha someone is feeling the pressure - using election results rather than the consultation responses is so typical - but as Cllr Rose (who also gets a grilling in the Mail) told us the consultation for the first-round of LTNs wasn't a referendum - this time it appears it might have been. Obviously Cllr Newens doesn't like the accusation that she has overseen the first ever Labour U-turn on an LTN! 😉 Shame the Tories and Lib Dems didn't think take a leaf out of Labour's books and engage in a bit of tactical voting and one set of councillors withdraw! I feel a bit dirty doing this but here's the link to the Mail article which did make me chuckle.... https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12107823/Labour-run-Southwark-council-scraps-plan-SIXTH-low-traffic-neighbourhood.html Funny how Cllr Newens goes on to say: "In reality, the 2022 election results give southwarklabour a strong mandate to improve active travel infrastructure + reduce traffic in our borough"....a little bit rich and someone ought to remind her how she, and her other councillors and party, went out of their way not to mention anything about active travel during the run-up to the election, choosing to pretend it wasn't a local issue at all....her U-turn on that is almost as impressive as the U-turn on the Turney Road closures.....but as I have said time and time again admitting you're wrong is often the hardest thing for many hard left-wing thinkers!

I think this is the real motivation for the closure and "children's health" was the narrative the council created under pressure from cycle lobby groups to create a route to and from the Herne Hill velodrome. This is what has been wrong with so much of this planning from the outset - it has been way too focussed on appeasing the cycle community - this is why the DV junction has been such an abomination from the beginning - the changes weren't designed with all user-groups having equal weighting - the priority was always cyclists and everyone else was an after-thought and had to be shoe-horned into the designs - it's why that junction can be so dangerous for pedestrians now - the council is aware of the issue but doesn't have the backbone to do anything about it.

Can anyone determine what is going on here because that report from late last year says (or has this been superseded by something else) - Lime is considered dockless e-bike provider is it not?: We seem to have a trial of e-scooters but e-bikes being trialed by council agreement operator by operator but then a statement that there are no agreements with any dockless providers. Is this a diversionary tactic from the council and the providers - kit-fly a trial on e-scooters whilst rolling out e-bikes with no proper mechanism? All very confusing... 2. The proposal to trial e-bikes in the borough until 31st May 2024 through entering a memorandum of understanding with each operator of e-bikes be approved by the Cabinet Member for Leisure, Parks, Streets and Clean Air. E-bikes 11. There are currently no arrangements or agreements with any dockless ebike operator to place bikes, multiple units of bikes or create hire ‘stations’ in Southwark. 12. Other boroughs have signed up to trial schemes with e-bike operators and as such, we agreed that individual units may be off-hired and re-hired in the borough effectively making Southwark a ‘ride through’ borough. 13. There is very high demand for e-bike hire across the borough with usage rates many times higher than e-scooter usage.

To be fair, the Turney Road closure made no sense at all and was incredibly flimsily created and just looked like local grandstanding councillors pandering to the usual local lobbyist voices. Thankfully, not even the council could justify following through with it - but one wonders how much money was wasted on it. Let's be fair the biggest issue for children in that area now is from bikes as they eat, drink and play outside Au Ciel on their way home from school. It would have been far better for the council to focus on that than an absolute farcical folly project that was the closure of Turney - one wonders if that was a step too far for the Village councillors and now they are going to be forced to take a more pragmatic approach to future grand ideas. We know this council hates admitting they are wrong but this one must have caused some debate within the council for them to admit defeat and hopefully tempers their enthusiasm for more ill-thought out ideas.

Ex- that'll explain why I can't find anything about them on the Southwark site! ;-). Are e-bikes a done deal then - I notice on the Westminster site that they refer anyone who has any issues with badly parked bikes/bad usage etc to the operators themselves? Does Southwark have any mechanism to monitor the problems residents may be having with the bikes?

Well, lots of Lime bikes have suddenly appeared on our streets scattered around in far greater numbers than we have ever seen before. They appeared around the same time as the new Calton cycle hire bay appeared (which was chocker full of bikes when it opened with no room for any more), And following that there were a lot of bikes dumped along the length of Dovercourt, Court Lane, Woodwarde and Beauval - you could understand if there was a cluster of bikes near Dulwich Park, for example, but the way the bikes were left along the length of the roads looked very odd and not at all random. If you look at the Lime hire map there are a lot more bikes in the area as a whole than there has been so it does look as if Lime are increasing the numbers but maybe they have more bikes than the official parking spaces can take so are being forced to put them elsewhere. Or maybe there has suddenly been a huge overnight increase in the number of people using them but that would be more gradual rather than overnight. More likely though is Lime is trying to force their solution as part of the trial - flood the market so they become the go-to option due to availability. Now the council has added more bays then I see no reason for the Lime bikes to be parked anywhere other than in the bays. Inconsiderate pavement parking is a problem - but one that is not uncommon in any city that has hire bikes. BTW does anyone have a link to the council's e-bike here trial page - I can't see to find one?

Is there a mechanism to respond to the trial? Are constituents being given an opportunity to feed into it?

Malumbu, I do spend a lot of time around that junction so perhaps you'll just have to take my word for it that many cyclists there are very intimidating. So maybe instead of being critical of people who actually live in the area pop down to Dulwich Village junction this morning and take a look for yourself - they'll be a load of lycra full kit wallies flying down Calton without a care in the world for any of the pedestrians using the junction.

Given the hierarchy of road users pedestrians should be given priority at that junction and cyclists should be made to dismount. The speed at which some come down Calton and negotiate the S before the traffic lights is shocking. Shared cycle and pedestrian space rarely works in practice and way too much priority has been given to cyclists by the council at that junction and it is poorly designed.

My goodness Mr C - surely you’re smart enough to realise that was a joke…….? For the benefit of doubt in that regard, let me also state that had you managed to prove you had posted on this forum something other than one set of subject matter then I would not have expected you to tie me to the back of the cargo bike (that you have kindly clarified you don’t own) and drag me around Dulwich as my apology to you…..just in case you didn’t get the joke….

Malumbu, please stay on topic. Admin, perhaps you could police this - some people seem determined to take threads off topic.

Definitely Lime dumping them, there are loads along Court Lane too. The council has added more bays (Calton) and Lime seems to have taken this as good reason to dump hundreds of the things all over Dulwich. Someone ought to remind the council that this is supposed to be a trial and people are getting fed up that our streets are getting littered with dumped bikes. It's beyond a joke.

The last time the council did a survey of visitor trends to Lordship Lane (back in 2015) the results were very interesting and suggested Lordship Lane was a bit of a destination high street drawing people from a wide area (which makes sense) - the report said: [Lordship Lane] draws people from a wider than average area: 57% of those surveyed were from SE22, SE15 or SE12 - the remainder came from 29 "further and more widely distributed" postcodes dotted all over London. 25% had travelled for more than 30 minutes to get there 22% had arrived by car which was twice the average of any other Southwark High Street (bar Walworth Road). It was one of the key points the traders on Lordship Lane used to lobby the council when they planned a very broad CPZ zone in the very first instance as it would have had a negative impact on it. So, for Lordship Lane it certainly looks like it would have a negative impact - and remember, this report was done in 2015 when the Lane had few eating destinations and the report stated that: However, while frequency of visit is high and average spend a little above average, a third of the visitors are rather unenthusiastic about what is on offer, while another third are there because of the range of shops. Lordship Lane serves shoppers in many retail categories but underperforms on foodservice.

The challenge is always that as soon as chains start moving in then rents increase and the independent's can't compete (chains can happily run a loss-leader in an area given they will have more profitable outlets elsewhere and often the attraction is brand building and delivery footprint). You hear increases in rent being cited by so many of the independents (Luca's for example which has always been a shining light for quality and popularity but they just can't make it work with the rent increases being imposed on them).

The closure of Hisar really is the end of an era and the fact it is being replaced by a Chipotle speaks volumes..... The Lordship Lane many of us loved so much is changing beyond all recognition.

How often had they been updating it before - was it every 3 or 6 months? No updated data for 8 months suggests there is either one due or they have stopped publishing it.

Malumbu - is there any evidence that CPZs make a difference - the fact that some suggest they help climate change is perhaps the most obvious form of greenwashing out there? What they do is make the council money and no-one should be in any doubt that that is the council's motive.

Interesting note at the bottom of the council’s explanation for the u-turn. How will this work given the cycle race track running through the middle of the Square, will they have to redesign it again…not sure public events and the speed some cyclists rattle down Calton Avenue towards the DV junction are good bed fellows. In response to the feedback from the community and key stakeholders, we're seeking to gain permission from the Department for Transport to designate the highway and public realm of Dulwich Square for permitted public events. There will be a consultation in May with all interested stakeholders

Update from One Dulwich….interesting how negative respondents are cited for u-turn by council yet result was very similar to Calton closure responses yet they forged ahead with that….does this leave the council open to complaints about consistency? Well done Dulwich for fighting this ludicrous idea….I wonder how much of our money was wasted on it…. Campaign Update | 17 May Turney Road closure scrapped and Dulwich Village junction consultation postponed Southwark Council have announced that – having considered the responses to the consultation held in October and November last year – they have decided not to ban vehicle access along Turney Road from the Dulwich Village junction. This seems to confirm what many had suspected, that the proposal to close Turney Road was a “false flag” tactic designed to enable the Council to say that it has listened to feedback and to draw attention away from their failure to respond to the community’s wishes in relation to the Calton Avenue/Court Lane/Dulwich Village junction. It is not clear why, when 66% of those commenting on the proposed closure of Turney Road to vehicles objected to it, the Council have decided to retain vehicle access, but when 64% of Dulwich respondents in a previous consultation objected to the closure of the Calton Avenue/Court Lane junction to vehicles, the Council decided to ignore them. Council’s report shows majority against design objectives and proposals The Council says that “the feedback from the consultation was broadly supportive”. In fact, it shows the complete opposite. As the Council’s own consultation report states, “there was limited support for all three objectives”. When asked what other objectives should be considered, the key responses were: “displaced traffic”, “access for key workers”, “equality of access for disabled people”and “opposition to junction changes”. None of these have been addressed, despite Southwark Highways’ Dale Foden assuring One Dulwich on 30 October last year that he had “heard your aspirations” about allowing vulnerable car-dependent road users through the junction and that they were “currently working on means to give better access to blue badge holders, SEND transport and other groups”. Only one in three respondents supported the designs for the junction. When asked to comment, the most popular responses were: “don’t support children’s play”, “don’t support seating”, “don’t support public art”, “don’t support planting” and “waste of money”. Hardly “broadly supportive”. As the third anniversary of the junction closure approaches next month, the Council says the consultation on the redesign of the junction, promised for “early in 2023”, will now commence in Autumn 2023 and be implemented in 2024. Vulnerable residents and Helen Hayes MP After writing to our MP Helen Hayes in November last year asking her to help Blue Badge holders and other vulnerable road users to be allowed access through the Dulwich Village junction, we received a series of emails from her requesting the names of One Dulwich “activists” (see our 15 February Campaign Update) before she would correspond further – despite our having explained why this was inappropriate. We have since asked Helen again if she will champion the needs of vulnerable road users through the junction but, so far, her support has not been forthcoming. The One Dulwich Team

Ex- but it is also true is it not that transport includes a broad variety of vehicles beyond the private car and would you not agree that the private car is a problem but not as much as say buses, taxis, PHVs, delivery vehicles or HGVs - that invariably spend far more time actually on the road. I have always felt that for council's to somehow claim that CPZs are implemented to impact climate change is classic greenwashing. Also I must challenge you that even though you say congestion does not contribute to increased pollution yet the report you link to states: Congestion can increase local air pollution but its impacts are complex and depend on several factors. We are all in agreement that a lot has to be done to improve the quality of our air but, by far, the biggest challenge is for things beyond the private car: gas heating, building works and the fact 40% of the airborne pollutants and particles come from outside the city (from agriculture etc). And when I see councillors post things like this: https://twitter.com/margynewens/status/1652724866896805892?t=qXu8rAKfE72AL86zkbOAsA&s=19 it just really frustrates me, especially as Cllr Newens talks about the heavier the car the bigger the problem (which is true but few cars are as heavy as a delivery van, bus or HGV). I also do note with a smirk that Cllr Newens refers to herself on her Twitter bio as a Socialist-environmentalist. Do you remember the time she used to refer to herself, if I remember correctly, as a Sugar Trader - of course sugar production is a really environmentally sound practice.....

Ex- what do the Vivacity monitors look like - are they the little square greyish/white boxes fixed on top of road signs and traffic lights? Earl - a clarification - the traffic data from the pneumatic tubes has been published - and the issue people have with that is, per the aforementioned thread, the data is unreliable and the manufacturers of the tubes recommend only using them in areas of free-flowing traffic (not close to junctions as they don't properly record crawling traffc) and Southwark has put a lot of them very close to junctions. That isn't a conspiracy theory - just walk around Dulwich Village and see where the tubes are positioned for yourself and ask yourself - is that an area of free-flowing traffic - if not then do you think he data that has published is accurate? And remember, the data had been moving in the wrong direction for the council as many of the streets on the dashboard were red so I posted this thread because I was interested to see whether the red trend continued and when we could expect another update from the council on the dashboard. The longer it goes on the more people rightly should question why the council isn't publishing the data and has removed many of the the tubes (maybe because they are using the Vivacity sensors and will publish that data in due course - but no-one has heard anything from the council so we are all left guessing).

Ex- thanks for responding, that's really interesting and useful. I can see that this will also leave councils in a bit of a bind as when they switch to a new system if that new system demonstrates there were inaccuracies in the old system it will likely fan the conspiratorial flames with those opposing LTNs saying - told you they were lying to us! Although I have also seen those on the anti-side saying that many of the modelled estimates for cycles etc (because of the weaknesses of the tubes to record those) were wildly optimistic and inaccurate after councils published better quality/realistic data from the Vivacity sensors. It will be interesting to see whether Southwark plans to update the dashboard and if they do whether they rely on the old systems or the new ones and whether the transition throws-up any anomalies.

Just leaving this here with (for once ;-)) no comment: https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/profile/35482-mrchicken/content/

I think it is interesting that Ex-, who works in the industry, stated that there are multiple ways to measure traffic - which I wonder is a narrative the industry is pushing in light of the controversy over the sub-10km/h limitation of the tubes that have been used, almost exclusively, to monitor traffic levels for Streetspace in Dulwich. As far as I am aware, and Ex- correct me if I am wrong, but pneumatic tubes are the only measurement device used for the dashboard numbers Southwark used to publish. And we know that many of the tubes mysteriously moved themselves closer to junctions when the measures went in (Lordship Lane South for example that started near the junction of Court Lane but then moved very close to Melford Road - which sits under slow moving traffic for large chunks of the day). Is it a co-incidence that the dashboard numbers are not being updated and many of the tubes seem to have been removed completely after people became more aware of their sub 10km/h limitation? Are the council tryng to mitigate potential exposure? Cllr McAsh hasn't been seen around these parts for a long time so maybe someone who lives in his ward can pose the question during a surgery or by email to get a response?