rjsmall

I agree with that approach as long as the council made the raw traffic count and pollution data available to the public (who are paying for it to be collected after all) - not sure if it would be covered under the Freedom of Information Act. I think doing that would allow independent analysis of the data and would show that the council is not manipulating, skewing or cherry picking data.

The terrapins have been there for many years. I remember looking at them sunning themselves on the rocks when my daughter was small enough to go to the infants playground and that is at least seven years ago.

There is also Supa Ya Ramen on Rye Lane https://goo.gl/maps/iv7cxrGWCtXF4TQS9

I don't see the problem with flawed statistics with that paper as they will just analyse the data provided to them. The issue is more likely to be with "traffic volume data provided by the local authority" If Islington have done similar to Southwark where traffic counters are placed in locations where traffic is too slowly moving to record accurate counts then it is worthless. The "garbage in - garbage out" principle applies.

You can see where the buses are in real time on this website https://www.traintimes.org.uk/map/london-buses/#P13 Doesn't seem to be many buses on the P13 route today.

Not sure that would work in practice as widening the pavements would remove the bus lanes leaving a single lane each way. Every time a bus stopped all the traffic in that direction would come to a standstill and the idling would result in increased pollution - not exactly the ideal environment to sit in.

I think the key passage in that BBC story is "Traffic data from 46 LTN scheme across 11 boroughs reported the mean percentage reduction of traffic on streets within them was 46.9%" It isn't really a surprise traffic is down when the road is inaccessible to vehicles for some or all of the time. The story goes on to note that 96 LTN schemes were introduced which means 50 have been discounted from the study. Hardly a complete picture.

If the closed / not closed Dulwich Village junction is to be permanent then I think the road set-up around it needs to be changed. I'd like to see on street parking removed from Eynella Road, Court Lane, Carlton Avenue and Woodwarde Road with those roads being divided into a two way cycle lane on one side and a clockwise running one way road system on the other. It would make it a lot safer for cyclists and would allow for the P4 bus to be rerouted down Court Lane and through the junction.

I have gone to Highshore Road sorting office twice to pick up mail - once I was able to get a couple of items, the other I came away empty handed. I think it depends upon how busy they are and how helpful the person at the counter feels. The time I got nothing was a couple of months ago and I was told there was a large amount of unsorted mail which would make it too time consuming to find an item.

BBC News has an article on the problems in East Dulwich https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-63780196

I just received a letter today that was dated 4th August - luckily it wasn't too time critical. It was only sent from Bishopsgate - I think I could have delivered it more quickly crawling on my hands and knees.

That no longer appears to be the case https://www.gov.scot/policies/water/water-charges-and-exemptions/ and https://scotland.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/paying_for_a_home/other_housing_costs/water_charges I don't have a problem with the principle of people paying for the resources they use especially when we are getting to a stage where we need to be more aware of our personal usage.

I guess when it comes to dodgy expense claims, a former MP (Norman Baker) probably has the inside track. (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5315118/Campaigning-Norman-Baker-MP-claimed-for-a-new-bicycle-and-broadband-MPs-expenses.html)

Looking at Google Streetview ( ) that roof has been a bit of a mess since 2019 although it looks as though the recent storms have made it worse. Reporting it was definitely the right thing to do.

> The problem is pure and simply that there are too > many cars and now is the time to redress the > balance in favour of other means of transport - be > that walking, cycling, scooters, taxis, Ubers and > buses. Well I can't see too many buses, taxis or Ubers getting through the junction in the Village. I'm not sure why the figures are only from June 2021 - the measures have been in a lot longer so why don't they show from when they were implemented? (and when are the -10% June, -12% Sept figures down from? - is it year on year, month on month etc?)

Interesting article just published in Wired magazine https://www.wired.co.uk/article/escooters-accidents-europe that references the problems other cities have experienced along with the ban the Royal Parks have on them. A e-scooter is certainly easier to get on and ride than an e-bike with no physical effort required. Perhaps this makes them more likely than a bike to be used after a few beers.

Mark Rober has done a few iterations of fake packages to catch out parcel thieves

In the grand scheme of Southwark Council's budget ?3000 is not a great amount. That said when we have local councillors blaming central government funding cuts for Southwark services being reduced it seems they may be misreading the mood of the crowd by providing funds for such a divisive event.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There is no problem with people hanging out in the > square. It is shared space. I not too sure how true this is - the planters / bollards make it a no-through road to cars but it is certainly still open to non-motorised traffic along with e-bikes and e-scooters. Mixing people and forms of transport that still go at a fair pace seems like a dangerous combination.

I'd second Kartuli - had a great meal in there recently and as Siduhe says it is something different. Personally I prefer Monkatsu to Yama Momo for Japanese and Maria's Tortilla is also worth a visit.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rjsmall Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Is there a link for the full report? > > At the bottom of this page: > https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/i > mproving-our-streets/live-projects/dulwich-review Thanks.

Does the report include which roads are defined as External Roads and which are Internal Roads and whether the "specific" roads were defined before the data was gathered or afterwards It is a shame that they didn't have any counters for Lordship Lane near the Grove Tavern and also the South Circular along Dulwich Common as they are roads that would be expected to pick up displaced traffic. Is there a link for the full report?

This is the direct link to the report https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/42203/OHS-Phase-3-Consultation-Summary-Report.pdf

I think it is a stretch to say that the LTN measures are overwhelmingly supported. Looking at the results I would say the objective is supported but the implementation and methods are not. It is curious that the questions regarding Melbourne Grove and Burbage Road split the "% in favour" results into two separate values. Also interesting is that respondents within the Burbage Road consultation zone are not in favour (46% for vs 47% against) (The values don't add up to 100% as the "Not sure" response has been disregarded)

I think it varies. Where I have had cause to challenge a PCN in the past the 14 day period for early payment was paused. If your informal challenge is rejected by the council and you decide to take it to the independent appeals body then you have to pay the full amount if they don't find in your favour.