Jump to content

Recommended Posts

@northern, Dulwich Central seems to have disappeared in a huff once people started asking him\her questions.


But thanks to him\her for highlighting that news piece by OneDulwich. Some pretty revealing information that, if true, would undermine the whole OHS consultation and our local councillors even more.


Anyway, I am sure DulwichCentral or one of the councillors will be able to deny it if the story isn't true. But watch out for some wriggling with words!

slarti b Wrote:

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

> rahrahrah Wrote:

> > I am completely supportive of Carlton Avenue and

> Court Lane being filtered, but do not understand

> the rationale for Dulwich Village road being

> closed at certain times of day?...

>

> Rahrah, are you one of those nimby's from Calton

> who voted to close their own street to traffic but

> didn't want closures elsewhere? Since you can't

> spell Calton properly, maybe not. :-)

>

> Closing Court Lane and Calton by themselves will

> just divert traffic onto Dulwich Village, EDG and

> Lordship Lane, as we saw last year. All of these

> have schools and many pupils walking on the

> pavement. On the other hand it is great for

> Alleyns, presumably why the private school

> dominated SRS people are so keen on it.

>

> To avoid this massive displacment along the

> boundary Roads any clsoures need to be timed to

> protect school children and for a minimal amount

> of time. That is what One Dulwich supports and

> first put forward 4-5 years ago during the QW7

> consultation.



I don't live on an LTN.


Think it's good to discourage local car journey's and restrict the use of side streets as cut throughs. There need to be some quieter streets away from the main roads, for people to travel through the area safely by foot or by bike imo.

But at what cost - is what is happening on the displacement roads worth it or should we all just consider this as collateral damage for a few quiet roads? If all roads became quieter it would be justified but they are clearly not and one roads' gain is another roads' loss and that is not equitable.


I am sure you will all agree with that too.


It was clear from the outset that there were going to be massive knock-on effects of these closures and the council had no idea what problem they were trying to solve (and what was causing it) and put measures in that have backfired extra-ordinarily.


I do often think about how many of these councillors would be reacting to these closures should this have been implemented by a different party in leadership - I suspect they would be standing with those of us who think the measures are totally unfit for purpose.

For clarity Slarti b - I was agreeing with rahrahrah's answer to you here when you accused him of being a "nimby" from Calton. I posted in answer to his post directly afterward. I've inserted his answer in quotes below.


Quieter streets for foot and bike traffic means many walkers and cyclists will also ADD TIME to their own journeys to avoid busy roads. I know I do.


"Think it's good to discourage local car journey's

> and restrict the use of side streets as cut

> throughs. There need to be some quieter streets

> away from the main roads, for people to travel

> through the area safely by foot or by bike imo."

Conrad Poulson, Chief Executive Officer at Huq Industries, said: 'The research suggests that the timing of LTNs and similar measures may be doing more harm than good, as there has been an increase in traffic congestion in London to the point that it's worse now than before the pandemic.'Traffic isn't simply evaporating because there are fewer places for it to go. That's why it's more important than ever for councils to fully evaluate traffic flows and driver behaviours in order to introduce initiatives that succeed in reducing car usage.'

Top five London boroughs facing increased congestion since January 2020


The top five boroughs for increased road delays in the capital are currently:


1) Lambeth - 34.7 per cent


2) Wandsworth - 33.9 per cent


3) Islington - 33.6 per cent


4) Southwark - 33.3 per cent


5) Hackney - 32.2 per cent

link https://huq.io/indicators/congestion-on-londons-a-roads-30-up-since-pandemic/

@Otto You must have missed my smiley when I suggested RahRah lived in Calton ;-)


But RahRah completely avoided my response to his suggestion that Dulwich Village should re-open 24\7. As I pointed out, "Closing Court Lane and Calton by themselves will just divert traffic onto Dulwich Village, EDG and Lordship Lane"


Closing a road such as Calton 24\7 has knock on impacts elsewhere which RahRah doesn't seem to want to acknowledge.

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Conrad Poulson, Chief Executive Officer at Huq

> Industries, said: 'The research suggests that the

> timing of LTNs and similar measures may be doing

> more harm than good, as there has been an increase

> in traffic congestion in London to the point that

> it's worse now than before the pandemic.'Traffic

> isn't simply evaporating because there are fewer

> places for it to go. That's why it's more

> important than ever for councils to fully evaluate

> traffic flows and driver behaviours in order to

> introduce initiatives that succeed in reducing car

> usage.'

> Top five London boroughs facing increased

> congestion since January 2020

>

> The top five boroughs for increased road delays in

> the capital are currently:

>

> 1) Lambeth - 34.7 per cent

>

> 2) Wandsworth - 33.9 per cent

>

> 3) Islington - 33.6 per cent

>

> 4) Southwark - 33.3 per cent

>

> 5) Hackney - 32.2 per cent

> link

> https://huq.io/indicators/congestion-on-londons-a-

> roads-30-up-since-pandemic/


What Conrad Poulson also said - and what the report was based on - is that the reduction in use of public transport is key:


?Many people now favour their car over using public transport for their essential journeys, as it provides peace of mind in a secure, single-occupant environment. If certain roads are closed to vehicles, it simply means people are finding alternative routes and causing greater congestion,? said Huq Industries chief executive Conrad Poulson.'


The report also says: 'Those regions that have seen an increase are generally densely populated areas that have traditionally relied heavily on public transport."


Avoiding public transport is clearly a major factor in any transport issue during a pandemic. Surely whichever side of the debate can agree on that.


So lets wait and see.. as restrictions ease and people return to public transport.

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Good public transport is key to reducing car

> use...absolutely agree.



Good and safe from picking up covid or other transportable respiratory viral infections. Which means more of it running with everyone respecting each other and wearing masks


However this doesn't mean penalising cars to make it run faster as "this service has been held to regulate service" will occur. It needs more buses, longer (more carriages), quicker and more frequent tube trains, maybe trams and more trains to various places.


TFL are stymied by the issue with resistance to driverless trains / tubes as they can improve service frequency but require better infrastructure and the unions arguing it's not safe. The German Frankfurt tram system tested automatic obstacle detection and breaking systems plus dlr trains operate driverless which proves it can work but to retrofit to other tfl rolling stock (plus potentially new tram systems) requires investment which isn't available at the moment and no bashing of car users will produce that investment.


So it appears stalemate for the moment, people need to get around, there's a general agreement that where practical car use should be less but the public transport system isn't going to be able to pick up a model shift in its present form and cycling / walking is only practical for short trips for the fit, non disabled and is generally elderly unfriendly plus as soon as you get a large item (or lots of shopping) to carry it's unsafe or difficult to cycle and walk.


The current solution of bash / tax the driver will cause resentment so the real response should be massive investment in better, more frequent and possibly running at a loss / empty at times to more destinations public transport before people will substitute it for some (but not all) car journeys.


The council are building resentment by what a lot of people see as waging war on motorists without also tackling the lack of practical safe alternatives (and not just the cheap option of saying cycling and walking which is frankly not enough)

@Dulwich Central

I am still waiting to hear from you about why the OneDulwich expos? of the DV Councillor's secret working Group (set up "to help run the OHSD consultation") is deceitful.


And whether you think that the Councillor's claims of a 47% increase in traffic was deceitful.


btw you complained to Trevor M about the number of OneDulwich supporters. Well, I looked at the info on the OneDulwich map (reluctantly released by the Council under FoI) and counted how many people within the OHS consultation area supported closing Calton Ave 24\7 in the online consultation. The answer? 54 people (20 of them from Calton); the council called this strong support.

Compare this to the (freely available) information on the One Dulwich web site which shows how many in the consultation area oppose the 24\7 closure. 1,008 people; local councillors dismiss this as a vocal minority.


Clearly neither you, nor our councillors, understand data and numbers.

Clearly there are a lot of arguments flying around about consultation/ representation, but I think there is a simple bottom line - if we're going to tackle the climate emergency, where do we start?


An obvious place for me is unnecessary short car journeys, and the creation of LTNs certainly helps reduce that by creating a disincentive for default car use. I'm inconvenienced by a number of the effects of the LTN, but I buy into the fact that if there is to be a major shift in thinking as to how we live in the future, we have to start somewhere. Plenty of smokers were railing against banning smoking in pubs - a couple of decades or so on, how many of us miss those days?

So let those who are able to make the adjustments to lifestyle. Let those who are vociferously pro LTNs but who still own a car, cease car ownership. That's a start. At a time when many are under incredible pressure to earn a living, care for relatives and just survive, forcing extreme lifestyle changes in a matter of months is divisive and unhelpful. If you are merely inconvenienced by LTNs that is one thing, for others the impacts are a lot more serious.

Spartacus Wrote:

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

> heartblock Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Good public transport is key to reducing car

> > use...absolutely agree...

> However this doesn't mean penalising cars to make

> it run faster


It is dreamland to imagine that bua transport can improve without inconveniencing car drivers. Buses need more dedicated street space, priority over cars, and fewer cars in the way.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

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

> Spartacus Wrote:

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

> -----

> > heartblock Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > Good public transport is key to reducing car

> > > use...absolutely agree...

> > However this doesn't mean penalising cars to

> make

> > it run faster

>

> It is dreamland to imagine that bua transport can

> improve without inconveniencing car drivers. Buses

> need more dedicated street space, priority over

> cars, and fewer cars in the way.


Thought they had this already with bus lanes and red routes?

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...