Penguin68

Which is of course madness. North to South and vice versa is the only way public transport here works, those are the one journey type I'm guessing the majority would choose public transport for!

In the past CPZ';s were sold to punters who 'voted' for them on the basis that they then had access to a scarce resource which was being 'taken' from them by incomers - not on the basis that this was simply a local cost of ownership - now that punters who were in parking distress have paid for that alleviation others (who do not have parking distress as there is not that competition on space) are being told that it's not 'fair' that people who have had to pay for something they needed should be 'penalised' by people who do not need special access to parking getting away with not paying for something which offers them no additional benefit. At least Southwark should be honest - they have decided to monetise roads even further as there is no restriction on what they can do or charge, so they are avoiding capping. Of course, legally, they cannot spend this money on anything other than roads, but I am sure that 'roads' will start to mean a great deal more than it used to in common parlance. We can expect wholly exorbitant charges (or indeed no permission granted) for those who apply in future to build off-street parking. This is, simply, a shakedown by the north of the borough, hugely well supplied with public transport, on the middle class south of the borough, already poorly served (and increasingly more so) by TFL and the train companies (not of course in the control of Southwark). I wonder what parking fees Lime bikes etc. are paying for occupying road and pavement spots - and in a haphazard way which motorists would be penalised for. But 'fairness' is very much a one-way street when it comes to our Masters in Tooley St.

I believe the rules require that monies 'earned' through road and parking pricing and through traffic fines can only be spent on roads (which might include e.g. planters). But of course the council could earmark no other money on road expenditure, releasing funds for other spending heads. Indeed it is possible that the council plans to make all its roads self financing, meaning that non car owners would then be paying for all the roads costs meaning cycling, public transport and pedestrian users would be getting that 'free ride' the council is so intent on trying to correct, as far as car owners are concerned. If anyone cares to match road budgets with forecast road usage and fine income, we might see just how much of the road budget businesses and private owners are contributing and will contribute through this hypothecated revenue stream.

The general assumption being made by some of the car phobes here is that no one needs to (or does) leave London or even the immediate vicinity. If you only shop in your local shop (assuming you live close enough to one), and only go where you can reasonably cycle then, indeed, you may not need a car. However, if you travel further afar (or east/ west) or on the weekend, or during the innumerable strike days, or around them, or are in any way disabled by age or infirmity, or want to travel late(r) at night or... well the list is endless but if you have a car, and can drive, then using one will either make certain journeys possible at all, or will allow you to get somewhere (and back) in a fraction of the time that being self-propelled or relying on (often non existent) public transport will allow. Not needing a car in ED isn't the same as not needing a car.

That was rather the point I was making, I'm glad you understand how general taxation works. Even if you don't agree with it when it comes to privately owned cars.

Obviously the childless and those who didn't use state education facilities shouldn't have to pay for state education, so the method that the council chooses to balance those books would be to charge parents with children at state schools for that service. That's quite crazy. The whole point of taxation is that we all make limited or no use of some things paid tor by taxes in exchange for the use of things we do use. You can't just cherry pick. What contribution to road etc upkeep is being made by pedestrians and cyclists? Or to street cleaning by those with dogs? There's a couple of old women on the pavement outside chatting, where are the rent collectors to charge them for their pavement usage. I'm not there and it's not fair they are using the pavement when I'm not. Considering that the council is a taxing authority it's more than a bit worrying that they don't understand the principles of general taxation.

Thete was a full exhibition of the plans with a chance to to talk to staff and planners about it in the gallery itself a few months back, which I went to. This is not something very new that has been sprung on people. It seems to be making better use of the land and in particular extending its educational remit. The new building is for teaching, not really display. There is already space for education so this will be additional, hence perhaps, as it is more isolated, for younger age groups. Part of the area to be encorporated in the landscaping was previously inaccessible, I believe, so it's probably a net gain of public space free to enter,at least during gallery opening hours. And the existing little sculpture park which has recently been installed is a bonus and will only be further improved.

Is it possible that this is practice specific - I know some practices have their own phlebotomist on site? My own surgery has nothing similar posted. The Kings and Tessa Jowell phlebotomy site makes no reference to this https://www.kch.nhs.uk/services/services-a-to-z/phlebotomy/

I'm sorry (no I'm not) but that's complete rubbish. Maintaining the status quo is an entirely acceptable option on many occasions. Only an idiot or a troll would suggest otherwise. You may need alternatives for some issues, but by no means all. There may be no valid solution to a problem, in which case doing nothing is far more sensible than doing something which doesn't work, which has cost, inconvenience and no acceptable outturn. For you, reading your posts, the only acceptable solution to, it would seem, any problem is to ban car and car usage, or get as close to that as can be managed. You will in fact accept no other solutions, whatever the problem is. And, as I gather you in fact have no dog in a local fight which this is, your opinion would belong in the Lounge, where you would like everything traffic based to be lodged, rather than on a board which addresses local to ED issues. Perhaps you could start your own 'I hate cars' thread there, and not bother local to ED people on this board discussing local to ED problems.

To be fair, Boris's ULEZ was in Central, built up, congestion charge London - expansion first to the 'inner' ring road and then to to M25 is a Labour plan - with some exceptions of some roads the main air pollution problems are more concentrated in central, built up areas with very slow moving traffic than in more leafy suburbs. We now have a labour ploy for the proposed CPZ expansion in Southwark that it will make the streets prettier to have fewer cars, if that's actually achieved! At least air quality can be measured - prettiness is very much a subjective thing. And if our councillors are to be the judge of prettiness! Well, the mind boggles. But then, the world is prettier if its a kulak free Marxist world, I suppose.

To be fair to the council, they did make it clear that they were also researching those who worked in Southwark (but didn't, by definition, live there) - which is fine as they too are impacted by Southwark decisions and have a vested interest in Southwark. The fact that the 'research' was a disgrace and a sham is a different issue, but the stated objective is surely acceptable. However the 'interest groups' who also participated in the research (reading somewhat between the lines) did not necessarily have any stake or interest in Southwark at all.

This is anything but a random or even representative sample - since it looks at people using local facilities during opening times it will not have sampled 'local' people who work outside of the area, indeed the 'clientele' at either type of sight cannot be said to be broadly representative. How many people who 'work' in Southwark, for instance, use Southwark libraries and leisure centres if they don't also live in Southwark? Though if they work in South Southwark (old Borough of Camberwell, i.e. around us) they are very likely to have travelled by car unless they live in a north: south axis, as east west travel is very poorly serviced by public transport. This is simply (as social survey style research is concerned) a complete travesty. To base any decisions on results from such a statistical disgrace is close to criminal. As a former (now retired) member of the Market Research Society this turns my stomach.

I would suggest leaving blank but saying in the commentary that you don't want any additional CPZs, but if one is to be implemented you would choose the 5 day limited time option. That way you cannot be shown by silence to have endorsed the 24/7 option. Do remember that the council has previous when it comes to 'interpreting' survey results. And claiming they are non binding if they don't match what they want!

It is also not clear to me what the impact will be on existing CPZs. If this is to be Southwark wide I suspect that the council will retrofit the most savage choice, say the 24/7 option, on all existing CPZs. At the least, any zone more lenient than whatever the council chooses will be increased to that. And make no mistake, it will be the council's not the residents' choice. It will not be implemented by ward, even though the paperwork might imply that. After all, ease of administration will aim for a unified approach of equal misery.

Hand delivered today was a missive from Southwark informing me that a Southwark-wide CPZ was to be implemented by the end of the year (so far as I understood it) with the only consultation being on how painful we wanted it to be (not whether we wanted it or not). The clear reason given was to remove cars from Southwark to make the streets prettier - there was no pretence that this had anything to do with parking problems or any other recent excuses, other than it was cars that were parking. It was just to make the streets and pavements prettier without the annoyance of cars. I live a 25 minute walk from any station (younger people might be able to walk quicker) and I would not consider cycling safe at my age and (mild) infirmity. And I live on a hill. But I do have off-street parking for 3 cars! - But not for trades and delivery people, of course, or relatives, or friends, or (eventually) carers. Does anyone recall whether Southwark Labour had a compulsory (no consultation) borough wide CPZ in their last election manifesto? I can't recall it. In the manifesto before they did say they wanted to rid Southwark of private vehicles of course, but I didn't notice it in the most recent one. They also listed their proposed prices - but we know what they do with price lists once they've been introduced, so they're hardly relevant. Oh, and they're not going to charge blue badge holders too much! But they are going to charge them, of course.

I'm sorry to have to wade in here, but to build a conspiracy theory around One Dulwich and its membership is just a waste of time; this is a very local issue of no interest outside the locale; this is not where conspiracies start. It's a bunch of people (probably more than just a literal handful) who didn't like the initial proposals (probably for a multitude of different reasons) and then found themselves under attack from a number of both local and non-local people, some with with an ideological axe to grind, some who just had different priorities and/ or views about limits of personal freedom. Is it political? - yes of course it is - that's the definition of politics, is it 'Political' - probably not or if so only so far as the 'official' council proponents are following themselves a clear political (and in their last but one manifesto) line, so opposition tends also to be Political opposition. The fact that the apparat would only engage (initially) if the group gave full disclosure of membership, finances etc. suggested a certain Putin-esque approach to exercise of local democracy and opinion. Local 'political' ('being involved') activism is probably and in general a good thing - those who fear it I tend to believe are also not too keen on local democratic expression either (save by them, of course). Which does not condone actions which transcend democratic discussion and sloganizing.

If you are going to make claims (and by gum you do) that the data shows that all is right with your world, then you really must allow those grown-up who have spent careers deriving and using data to comment when the data collection analysis and reporting methods do not meet the criteria used by actual bona-fide researchers. Which includes e.g. relevant base-lines and reliable and consistent data collection methods. And which also includes measuring the values which are claimed as important and not proxies for those values. Evidence suggests that neither side in this debate ('are the LTNs introduced in Dulwich effective in achieving the stated aims to do with public health') are 'tiny cliques'. To claim otherwise is simply a debating point. Neither are either side evilly motivated. But to argue against all those who ask for properly collected and reliable data for 'our' Dulwich LTNs that (in bold) they are not actually interested in data - when many, if not most show a surprisingly good grasp of what data and data collection should be (and what is good, and flawed statistical analysis) would be to fly in the evidence at least that these critics are data savvy. And thus may even be interested in data. And I don't believe, though I am happy to stand corrected, that any of those in the opposite camp to you (that is, those who want 'proper' data for Dulwich) have ever argued that there are not LTNs in existence somewhere which have delivered against their promised intention (or at least, seem on the way to doing that). Do remember that, until they had the chance to introduce LTNs in a crisis where public debate was not required, Dulwich failed the criteria set by Southwark for LTN introduction. We should have been on the bottom of the pile, not the top! If Southwark's original analysis for LTN priority introduction was originally correct, then its argued failure in Dulwich (by those who hold opposite views to yours) is hardly surprising.

The 'existing evidence' is locally flawed - locally base lines were not taken, or, where taken, were taken during the Covid lockdowns when 'normal' was anything but. There is no continuity of evidence locally which shows results which are in fact comparable - so any conclusions drawn are almost certainly flawed - and we know that the measurement system for traffic levels is inaccurate because the measurement methodology used is admitted by the firm supplying the equipment not to work for slow or standing traffic. The 'intent' of LTNs was twofold, to reduce health impacting pollution derived from traffic (excess CO2 does not damage health except in very enclosed spaces) and increase levels of public health by encouraging 'active' travel - i.e. walking or cycling (not using enhanced e-cycling). Traffic measurement (if undertaken properly, which this isn't) is a proxy for these outcomes but not a true measure. As LTNs and the expanded ULEZ overlap if air quality measurement were being taken effectively and consistently then it would still not be possible to distinguish ULEZ from LTN impact - and improvement of public health through walking etc. is necessarily demonstrable only following long-term study. It is worth noting that in Dulwich 'active travel' was already noted as being in the higher bracket for London areas. What the proponents in the main of LTNs are is not in fact pro-health as anti-car - hence their focus on the proxy measures.

I don't think this can come from a 'central' budget if it is a replacement GP service - GPs are private contractors into the NHS - they buy in services from e.g. doctors, nurses, pharmacists etc. to meet their contractual requirements to treat patients on behalf of the NHS and are payed a capitation fee for their registered patients together with payments for specific services (i.e. childhood vaccinations etc., certain types of testing) as agreed with the NHS. The practices may pool resources in order to smooth out demand curves - or to offer (as they did for some rounds of Covid vaccination) a single service point for a number of GP Practices. The TJ centre also houses outsourced hospital care (i.e. phlebotomy) which is paid for out of Hospital trust budgets - which are direct NHS expenditure.

I'm guessing the range of topics for discussion in the Ukraine is also more limited than a couple of years ago. I'm not suggesting an equality here. Just that if there is something which is stand-out annoying (at least to some people) that does tend to dominate. And news about it is interesting. A lot of posts are about different aspects of the traffic and transport situation - but these do have a big impact on people's lives. And most are both topical and local (and I absolutely disagree with those who think that things peripheral to SE22 are not relevant to those of us who live (I do) in ED). The regular (but not continual) grid lock outside my Underhill Road house in rush hours since the Dulwich LTN introductions make very clear that we in ED are not in an island unaffected by our surrounds.

See, the problem with this is that you've just made it up. I have just made up that the South Circular is the tariff boundary for the currently extended ULEZ - really? - and thus that diversions off the South circular through bits of Dulwich wouldn't carry tariff penalties? I have just made up that Southwark's LTNs (which I am sure exist, there's been so much written about them here) stop many diversions off and back onto the South Circular for at least part of the day - are you really suggesting that? These are two actions which make traffic re-routing flexibility at the time of need very difficult or costly (to the motorist). That is a clear downside to the traffic alterations instituted by the Mayor and Southwark independently of each other.

Both. In my case. If the work needs doing it should be done quickly. A few years ago the South Circular could have been closed (possibly just for a couple of days, or even over-night) and a diversion put into place to allow the work to be completed quickly - but with Southwark closing off so many routes with LTNs, and the Mayor turning the South Circular into a tariff boundary that isn't possible. And with no authority prepared to put pressure on whoever is doing the work, and for whatever reason (because, perhaps, it's in two 'domains' that don't, or won't, talk to each other) we have the ordinary voters and tax payers paying the consequences.

It's lucky the South Circular is only a little local road with no significant traffic - oh, no, wait a minute... it's the inner periphery road, which, additionally, the Dulwich LTNs have forced all the local traffic onto, isn't it?

I'm afraid that's not his choice, but the electorate's (and his party's in choosing him as a candidate, should he care even to stand). We have the council we have locally not because of any local issues (really) but because of things like Brexit and Covid response and not liking Boris Johnson and hating the Tories. Whilst we vote locally on national issues you can understand why councillors too don't care about local issues (we don't, in the ballot box) - they care about their own political careers (which, to be fair, James did as well as he tried to move from local to national influence at the last but several General Elections). To get on in the Southwark Labour Party really not caring at all about the posh nobs in Dulwich and what they want is actually a requirement!

https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/southwark/southwark-council-says-they-will-remove-and-charge-e-bike-operators-for-blocked-roads-and-pavements/