Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Rockets Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rahrahrah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > A significant number of car journeys in london

> are

> > only a couple of miles btw.

>

>

> Let's dive a little deeper into that because I

> know Cllr McAsh said in his blog that the majority

> of journeys in London can be walked or cycled.

>

> Here's TFLs data

>

> 35% of all car trips are shorter than 2km.

> 32% are between 2km and 5km.

> 30+% are over 5km.

>

> What I can't find from TFL is whether taxis and

> private hire vehicles are included in these stats

> - which would of course skew them massively in

> central London.

>

> People can make their own minds up now based on

> the actual data.


They are private car trips. Taxi and PHV trips are recorded as that and are a tiny percentage compared with private car. The Travel in London report combines them both into 'Taxi' at 1% of all trips with car at 35%

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/travel-in-london-report-12.pdf

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> @rockets.

>

> So 67% of car trips under 3 miles. I would

> describe that as 'significant'.



But can they all be walked or cycled? A 6 mile roundtrip would be a significant distance for many would it not - especially given Dulwich is surrounded by significant hills on most sides?


As I have said before I think you can make a dent in the 35% shorter than 2kms but that's about it. That leaves 60%+ that are most likely always going to be done in a car. And I would be very interested to know what TFL counts as a car journey and whether private hire and taxis are included with that.

Metallic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Maybe they are short because the driver can't walk

> that far, or has too many kids to handle plus

> shopping,


but most of them aren't

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/analysis-of-cycling-potential-2016.pdf

Sorry, cross posted. 3 miles in a bike is very little. Not everyone will be able to do that and even some very short journeys clearly need a car if you?re carrying large objects etc.


But some of those journeys (67%!), must be able to be changed. Under 3 miles you?re looking at 10 - 15 minutes

Precisely. The majority of journeys, say, half a mile are going to involve a rather steep hill. Were it a matter of flat ground everywhere for miles in all directions that would be different, but the hills are truly serious stuff and only the very fit will get up them on a regular basis. Much as some would like, this fact cannot just be airily dismissed.



Rockets Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rahrahrah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > @rockets.

> >

> > So 67% of car trips under 3 miles. I would

> > describe that as 'significant'.

>

>

> But can they all be walked or cycled? A 6 mile

> roundtrip would be a significant distance for many

> would it not - especially given Dulwich is

> surrounded by significant hills on most sides?

>

> As I have said before I think you can make a dent

> in the 35% shorter than 2kms but that's about it.

> That leaves 60%+ that are most likely always going

> to be done in a car. And I would be very

> interested to know what TFL counts as a car

> journey and whether private hire and taxis are

> included with that.

And, of course, the numbers quoted by TFL are London wide and as you get further out of London so the journeys, invariably, get longer due to the lack of proper public transport infrastructure the further you get from the centre. So I very much suspect in an area like Dulwich the skew is much further towards the longer journeys, especially given Dulwich's proximity to the A205.


And of course TFL acknowledges that the more children you have (you might have noticed there are a lot of children in Dulwich - Nappy Valley and all that) the less the opportunity to cycle.

Was just having a look at the agenda for Southwark?s cabinet meeting on Tuesday which will consider the LTN petition.


http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=302&MId=6663&Ver=4


I?d advise people to read the report by Councillor Rose at item 23,


http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s91336/Report%20Environment%20Scrutiny%20Commission%20Air%20quality%20response%20to%20the%20report%20considered%20at%20July%20cabi.pdf, this responds to recommendations by Southwark?s Environmental Scrutiny Commission?s Air Quality Report back in July, which includes some fairly controversial suggestions...


Haven?t read the whole thing yet but did want to share the first paragraph of the conclusion of the commission?s air quality report:


?It can no longer be acceptable for any transport schemes to be developed which cause increases in traffic volumes on other roads, particularly where there are vulnerable populations like schools and hospitals, and when we know those living in poverty, BAME populations and residents in areas of existing poor air quality are least able to cope with the effects of diseases like COVID-19?


That, at least, I think we can all agree on.


Edited to add link to report: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s89830/Scutiny%20report%20air%20quality%20FINAL.pdf

Describes the LL portion of EDG, ?It can no longer be acceptable for any transport schemes to be developed which cause increases in traffic volumes on other roads, particularly where there are vulnerable populations like schools and hospitals, and when we know those living in poverty, BAME populations and residents in areas of existing poor air quality are least able to cope with the effects of diseases like COVID-19? So time to rethink the gated community barriers and consider some positive changes for all - protected cycle lanes, easy to use cycle stores, public hire bikes, better wider paving, better more accessible local public transport, cleaner larger bus shelters.

Agree heartblock. The recommendation about LTNs in the original report said this:


"8Recommendation 14: Introduce a borough wide programme of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods. These should be implemented:

 Over a wide enough area in order to realise the benefits of traffic evaporation, which has been shown to take place when there is a significant reduction of short journeys by car under 2km.

 As a priority in areas with high levels of public transport (high PTAL ratings), poor air quality, lower levels of car ownership, in areas of deprivation and where the programs would impact positively on local schools and hospitals.

 Where traffic may be displaced onto main roads, the council must monitor the impact on air quality, and mitigate negative effects in advance of implementation, possibly by widening pavements and creating cycle lanes, managing traffic to reduce vehicle idling time and introducing green screening programmes.

 In conjunction with the introduction of CPZ and a reduction of parking so the kerbside can be utilised for active travel and public realm improvements (such as pocket parks and cycle parking.)

 In conjunction with improvements to Public Transport and other work on adjacent main roads to increase cycling and other forms of active travel."


I'm not convinced the Dulwich LTNs that Southwark have chosen really match the priorities in the recommendation (not that they have to). To be fair, although there's plenty of detail I don't agree with in the commission report, it is very clear on the need for "social justice" considerations, which I guess is what Councillor McAsh is now picking up on...

It says it?s live-streaming on YouTube


Venue: Online. This meeting will be livestreamed on Southwark Council's YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/user/southwarkcouncil.


Not sure if I?ll tune in to this. Only started reading up about this stuff very recently - and I don?t think it?s good for my blood pressure... is anyone else tuning in / participating eg in support of the petition?

legalalien Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It says it?s live-streaming on YouTube

>

> Venue: Online. This meeting will be livestreamed

> on Southwark Council's YouTube channel here:

> https://www.youtube.com/user/southwarkcouncil.

>

> Not sure if I?ll tune in to this. Only started

> reading up about this stuff very recently - and I

> don?t think it?s good for my blood pressure... is

> anyone else tuning in / participating eg in

> support of the petition?



Oh ok - thanks. Good point re: the blood pressure;) I wonder if they are planning any Q&A session with residents at all during that meeting.

Tuesday 20 October 2020 4.00 pm, Cabinet

Venue: Online. This meeting will be livestreamed on Southwark Council's YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/user/southwarkcouncil.

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=6663&x=1

The agenda is posted online, it is on there that there are several deputations applying to be heard, with uploaded documentation in support of whatever they want to say.


There is nothing from One Dulwich but it looks like the RA from Dulwich Village has applied to be heard, along with one of the "pro-closure" groups.


I'll take a look but I would think it is a good idea to watch the live feed to see how the councillors discuss the mess that has evolved in Lordship Lane, Melbourne Grove and environs, Dulwich Village (here after known as East and West Berlin as we all can see, that silly square should be known as The Wall), and generally how they make a huge decision based on a few minutes from those making deputations followed by their discussion.


Boy there is a lot on there to read. However if we are all to get our roads and freedom to choose how we travel back, let's hope there is going to be some commonsense attached to the discussion.


It is probably rubber stamped; this is the pretend consultation. Just like Quietway 7 consultations and Mr Hargrove I think it was. Meanwhile thanks to the water main, the lower part of my road, Townley Road and Calton Avenue are all full of u turners who don't believe a red sign that says 'road closed'.


I'm not going to support the Labour Party locally ever again unless they undo this rubbish set of decisions, with worse to come when the other bits go live.

With you on your view of the local Labour Party Metallic.

I never thought I would see the day when a Labour council is so enthusiastic about enforcing a policy from an extreme right wing, populist Tory government. Andrew Gilligan, once Mayor Johnson?s Cycling ?Tsar? and now ensconced in 10 Downing Street together with the rest of Dom?s Disrupters, is continuing the crusade he started with cycling super highways and Quietways (remember those?) Unelected and unaccountable he will presumably not cease until he has created a cycling Jerusalem........

heartblock Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Describes the LL portion of EDG, ?It can no longer

> be acceptable for any transport schemes to be

> developed which cause increases in traffic volumes

> on other roads, particularly where there are

> vulnerable populations like schools and hospitals,

> and when we know those living in poverty, BAME

> populations and residents in areas of existing

> poor air quality are least able to cope with the

> effects of diseases like COVID-19? So time to

> rethink the gated community barriers and consider

> some positive changes for all - protected cycle

> lanes, easy to use cycle stores, public hire

> bikes, better wider paving, better more accessible

> local public transport, cleaner larger bus

> shelters.


On this basis, I simply cannot see how Southwark can justify closing a road like Court Lane, one of the most affluent streets, in the wealthiest ward in the borough (and indeed, based on my Acorn research, home to some of the wealthiest people in the country). A road where car ownership is eye-wateringly high (check the 2011 census data if curious); and to which none of the above vulnerabilities apply, only to shunt the traffic onto Lordship Lane and EDG, which have far greater levels of poverty; far more social housing; schools where thousands of children are educated; a nursery; a care home for vulnerable adults and a health centre. It?s not as if EDG and LL weren?t already suffering from poor air quality.

As I feared. The council is seemingly accelerating and pushing ahead with ALL of the next phase of closures. They will only consult with residents after 6 months but ?before 18 months?. They are not going to listen to anyone and Cllr McAsh?s words are as hollow as I feared. The attached was just posted on NextDoor from a resident in the Peckham Rye area.


They are not prepared to listen to the wider community. The only plus side is the chaos these remaining closures will cause will ensure more people engage with the campaign to get them removed.


This council is completely out of control and we are very much suffering from the worst effects of a one-party state. They are will fully ignoring local residents.

I don?t think that ?consider people?s views? means consult in this context. I think it means they will consider any formal objections lodged within the initial six months of the order (as the experimental order process requires) and then move straight to permanent decision. I also doubt they?ll write widely to people explaining that they have to put objections in within six months if they want their thoughts to be considered at all. Is that others? understanding? It would be good if someone from Southwark could confirm this is the process (or clarify if not)...

This is how one of the other local authorities describes the process


?Once the consultation period has closed all comments received will be reviewed and these will be reported to the Ward Councillors and Cabinet Member (where appropriate) for consideration of the next steps. A decision will be made on whether to continue the Order on a permanent basis.


If formal objections are received they will be considered by Officers but the final decision on whether to proceed will be made by the Cabinet Member (the elected Councillor whose portfolio includes responsibility for parking) or Head of Highways & Transport under delegated authority.?


Mass campaign of objections, anyone?

legalalien Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This is how one of the other local authorities

> describes the process

>

> ?Once the consultation period has closed all

> comments received will be reviewed and these will

> be reported to the Ward Councillors and Cabinet

> Member (where appropriate) for consideration of

> the next steps. A decision will be made on whether

> to continue the Order on a permanent basis.

>

> If formal objections are received they will be

> considered by Officers but the final decision on

> whether to proceed will be made by the Cabinet

> Member (the elected Councillor whose portfolio

> includes responsibility for parking) or Head of

> Highways & Transport under delegated authority.?

>

> Mass campaign of objections, anyone?


Do we know if it?s like planning whereby there are only specific grounds on which you can object?

There is a Council meeting this coming week and the Council will debate the epetition against the DV closures. The meeting will be online/virtual and starts at 4pm on the 20th Oct:


You can ask to join the hearing of the epetition objecting to the Dulwich Village closures by emailing [email protected] and asking to join the Council hearing 20th Oct starting 4pm.



You can read the agenda for this meeting on the following web link:

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=302&MId=6663&Ver=4

It will be interesting to tune in. Looks like the deadline to submit questions has passed...why do I suspect the pro-closure lobby would have been given a heads-up about this.


I very much suspect the council will say they won't do anything until the 6 months has passed for each closure and will push ahead with their, unlawful, closures.


Also interesting to see that someone set an e-petition up in support of the closures and it managed to get 29 signatures.....

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...