Dogkennelhillbilly

Rubbish. Public transport is not just the tube. We've got multiple train stations and train lines in and near East Dulwich, tons of buses (inc 24 hour routes), and we're in the borough with one of the lowest rates of car usage in London. If you actually read the submission, you'd see there is plenty being done to improve public transport.

Because it owns lots of land, and if you align house building with e.g. station building, you can make money and unlock development.

"Labour HQ will be well aware of the damage it is doing..." Delusions of grandeur.

So sorry to hear that - what a drag! :(

"Some of us only have basic Nokia phones, some of which do not have cameras." And some of us have phones whose cameras don't work for some reason, or have a cracked lens. It's a bit annoying that you can't even manually enter a place name or code - which I appreciate is not the leisure centre's fault.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's getting on for a month since Cllr McAsh last > made an appearance here and a lot of questions are > still unanswered. He is fast becoming this forum's > Ferris Bueller....;-) > > > Bickering on the internet with pseudonymous numpties like you and me just probably doesn't seem like a good use of time at the moment.

Other interesting things: The Bakerloo line fleet is 48 years old! Nearly half of London car trips could be cycled in under 10 minutes. More than a third could be walked in under 25 minutes. Santander Cycle membership went up 200% this year. Only a third of tube stations are step free accessible. 20,000 new houses in Thamesmead are possible...if the DLR is extended. TfL will build 13,400 houses (50% market rate, 50% affordable) in London. If it were allowed to borrow, it could build another 47,000!

...at least not for a while. TfL published its priorities for the next decade, and Bakerloo Line isn't on there. DLR extension to Thamesmead, better trains for Jubilee line, more trains and services for the Northern Line, more electric buses, yes - but no tube for SE London. Bugger. Understandable but still...bugger. http://content.tfl.gov.uk/fc-20200930-supp-agenda-public.pdf

Not easy to catch spontaneously. Kapten or Gett?

If it's being moved, it ain't abandoned! No tax or MoT? Report to council and DVLA and cops (non-urgent line). Keep reporting until it's gone.

"the part time cyclists of court lane with their double driveways and garages are moaning about being oppressed" Love this "Court Lane elite and Southwark Stalinists" meme every time it comes up.

Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dogkennelhillbilly > > > > The point I'm making is he can't even double > park > > now because of the yellow box. Keep up. > > >The point is that the guy just pulls in front of > the planters and stops, as he has done every day > since they went in. >Keep up. > > Yes but before the drivers were not blocking the > twixt planter route. Now they encroach on the > yellow box and therefore commit an offence under > the RTA. The Royal Mail van wasn't allowed to double park or drive across the pavement, as happened previously. Nothing has changed, apart from your desire to find another problem with the closure.

slarti b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: > > > Okay - so give them. Don't just call anything > you don't want to hear lies or fake news. You're > saying an elected official lied to the community. > Identify what was said, identify what is > correct,and show it's a lie. > > See my post from April. Figures are Southwark's > own ones. > > /forum/read.php? > 5,2092625,2110963#msg-2110963 > > Councillors continually denied the base figure was > during the junction remodelling, even though they > were told where > the figures came from . It would be nice for them > to admit they were misleading people but I don't > expect that to happen. > > Enough for you? You've linked to a post in which you admit you don't actually know what the figure refers to. Yet despite the fact you don't know what the number is - you say it's a lie. You then go on to say that you do in fact know where it came from - but you don't think it's a fair comparison. But by this point you're neither saying it was a lie, nor is there any clarity on who raised the figure and what they said about it.

Upset they're too scruffy, upset when they're cleaned...

Yeah, like that, but more tanned and fit.

"The idea that only those with qualifications in traffic management can ?understand? sounds a bit desperate." The public is sick of experts. Where did the idea that you need to understand a subject in order to criticise methodology come from? Stuff and nonsense. All we need is the blitz spirit, common sense and pints of warm beer. We didn't fight Galtieri so that I had to walk to the shops, you know. irst mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It does seem likely the council have justified > certain interventions with misleading stats and > you are quite right to question and pursue this. > The idea that only those with qualifications in > traffic management can ?understand? sounds a bit > desperate. > > slarti b Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > What I like is the prospect of OneDulwich - > > entirely unqualified in traffic management and > > > environmental monitoring - bickering over > > pollution measurement methodologies. > > > > The OHS agenda and the subsequent so called > > "Covid" measures have been driven by the local > > councillors. Do they have any qualifications > in > > traffic management, or indeed related > disciplines > > such as engineering? From linkedin they seem > to > > be a Digital Content consultant (whatever?) and > a > > sugar trader. > > > > AS for the council officer who has been key in > the > > helping the councillors with OHS and the > so-called > > Covid changes: he has based the justification > for > > teh closures on a 47% increase in traffic > through > > the DV junction. This figure is totally > > misleading, with base figures taken during > > re-building work on the DV junction in Sep 2017. > > > He has also defended the strange traffic stats > for > > Calton Avenue, used to support the DV junction > > closure, whilst unable to explain the > > discrepancies with the earlier TfL survey. If > he > > is qualified in traffic management why is he > > behaving in this way? > > > > I do find it odd that his email signature has > no > > details of his professional qualifications but > I > > will be happy to hear what they are. > > > > Onedulwich has supporters who are engineers and > > professionals used to assessing figures (eg I > > studied Maths and Statistics and have worked > > analysing numbers for many years) and we also > have > > an experienced traffic engineer for advice. We > may > > not all be qualified in traffic management but > we > > are able to recognize when people are trying to > > pull the wool over our eyes.

Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Metallic Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Balham Post Office has stopped receiving > > parcels > > > from customers because the new road system > > means > > > the collection van can't get near it. > > > Now we have a gorgeous yellow box in the > > Village > > > (is there to be a camera??) right up to the > > > planters, the collection of parcels may be a > > > problem here too. Ditto delivery of > essentials > > to > > > the pharmacy. Once the double yellow lines > are > > in > > > and there is nowhere to park for these > > essential > > > services, can someone with a cargo bike do > the > > > deliveries for the PO and pharmacy? > > > > > > The post office van pulls up and double parks > to > > pick up and drop off post at the post office at > > the same time every day, as it has done ever > since > > the closure was put in. This is not much > different > > from what happened before when they stopped > > illegally on the corner almost every day as > there > > was never an available parking space in front > of > > the shops. > > > > Of course, this could be easily fixed by making > > 1-2 parking spots in of the shops delivery > only. > > The point I'm making is he can't even double park > now because of the yellow box. Keep up. The point is that the guy just pulls in front of the planters and stops, as he has done every day since they went in. Keep up.

Nigel Mansell looking in estate agent's window. Without his moustache, he looks a lot like Robert Maxwell (but more tanned and fit).

"Unfortunately we are in a one-party state here" The odd thing is these people really believe they're being oppressed. They genuinely think that their cosy suburban life is comparable to living in Eritrea, Turkmenistan or North Korea. They're so privileged that the merest inconvenience (and let's be clear - we are talking about not being able to drive a car down a street) seems like oppression.

Ha ha ha ha hahaha! Brilliant! Is that the one where they propose a turning circle for goods vehicles that's the size of a child's paddling pool?

"I have the figures to support this" Okay - so give them. Don't just call anything you don't want to hear lies or fake news. You're saying an elected official lied to the community. Identify what was said, identify what is correct, and show it's a lie. Give real sources, mind - not "my mate Terry overheard a councillor telling her hairdresser's dentist that Southwark wants to collectivise all Range Rovers".

ianr Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > You mean the one proposing to ban street > > parking on certain roads? That one? > > There's only one post dated yesterday 2:56PM: > /forum/read.php? > 5,2144433,2148945#msg-2148945. Yup, and it proposes restricting the places traffic can park! It's not rebutting my point, it's agreeing with it.

You mean the one proposing to ban street parking on certain roads? That one?

Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Balham Post Office has stopped receiving parcels > from customers because the new road system means > the collection van can't get near it. > Now we have a gorgeous yellow box in the Village > (is there to be a camera??) right up to the > planters, the collection of parcels may be a > problem here too. Ditto delivery of essentials to > the pharmacy. Once the double yellow lines are in > and there is nowhere to park for these essential > services, can someone with a cargo bike do the > deliveries for the PO and pharmacy? The post office van pulls up and double parks to pick up and drop off post at the post office at the same time every day, as it has done ever since the closure was put in. This is not much different from what happened before when they stopped illegally on the corner almost every day as there was never an available parking space in front of the shops. Of course, this could be easily fixed by making 1-2 parking spots in of the shops delivery only.

"The pro-closures lobby seems to have come to a bizarre conclusion that the all the people in cars in Dulwich are just locals driving within a one mile radius on a journey that can be walked or cycled." No-one has said this. "If there were buses that serviced those areas better, or cycle lances the whole way, I know for a fact people would use them." There's no way of building more cycle lanes or improving bus services without restricting the volume of other traffic and the places it can park.