Rockets

🙂 Pretty clear from the council and not at all embarrassing.....looks like some selective editing going on again by some... ..click the link to read for yourself.

It's like an episode of Scooby Doo...."darn it those pesky PTALs and council documents..." 😉 It's actually amazing how much of the pro-active travel lobby narrative is massively undermined by things previously published by the council...thank goodness for facts, historical council documents and good memories hey! #thethruthhurts

Ahem....see a few pages back.. this in relation to LTNs. My response is one of someone who made thier point very clear so doesn't feel the need to explain anything #oncebittentwiceshy 🙂

🙂

Which is an intervention is it not? Are CPZs not an intervention? Are they different because the council's narrative during the last CPZ consultation when they clumsily tried to convince people these were climate crisis interventions certainly made them one..... I think it is hilarious that the council desperately tries to create narratives to help justify what they want and yet it actually trips them, and their supporters, up because it often utterly contradicts what they have said before. History can be difficult when you try to manipulate an argument... It's most often the words of yesterday that do most harm to politicians....

Ha ha, well Ex- you know Southwark cite poor PTAL (transport links) as one of the reasons car ownership is so high in Dulwich....so maybe you should all lobby Southwark on their use of PTAL scores in official documents! 😉 It was the very same document that said that at 68% of journeys walked under one mile in Dulwich was one of the highest in the whole borough...so again, that doesn't fit with what you're saying or provide any rational for the need for interventions...it just doesn't add up. There seems to be a lot of attempts to rewrite history to suit a certain narrative going on here......#justsaying....

Except this is what they said....Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not true. They were very clear that interventions should only happen in areas with high PTAL scores....and that's not Dulwich Village...

Let's be honest it's not clear what the motivation is for CPZs and, for some reason, the council is hellbent on bringing them borough-wide. They were trying pre-Covid (68% of respondents said no) and have continued after (and the responses are even more in the negative) yet they continue their approach of spending tax-payers money on consultations to do one road at a time where they manage to garner just enough support to force a CPZ. Yet the council persevere against the wishes of the majority. The council goes out of their way to create parking pressure (extension of double yellow lines to the legal maximum) by every means open to them to try and create support for CPZs and still they can't get enough support to justify them. At the same time they tell us that we are reliant on cars in this part of the borough due to poor PTAL scores. So are they doing this just to spite drivers? Yet they fail to get enough support to roll out their plans but then spend tax-payers money on securing agreements with CPZ enforcement based on area-wide CPZs and then have surplus wardens who have no tickets to issue. So does anyone know why they are so obsessed with them? I am still convinced this is about revenue-generation and I bet a forensic accountant could tell us why it is so important to them and how they use the money to their advantage. Everything they do is about generating revenue at the cost of constituents. Because there is no other rational explanation for their utter obsession with rolling them out - there is zero environmental impact as they make no difference to car ownership nor journeys made. I am convinced they throw environmental messages in to drag the gullible into the debate. The council have yet to present a rational explanation and over the years they have lurched back and forth on reasoning - remember the supposed commuters driving from Kent nonsense they suggested the first time round. Someone knows and one day we may actually find out.

Concerns raised by a few residents...and then when consulted the majority of residents say no thanks and the council says....tough...we know what's best for you and drill down to a street by half street view of the detail!!! 😉

DB - completely agree but Labour could not do that as they would have never won the election - instead they were economical with the truth (all parties were) and now are learning some truths about economics! 😉

It's not a bad thing but when the government gives junior doctors 25%+, accepts the pay review recommendations (they don't have to) and then tells WASPI women - sorry, we can't afford your compensation, or they remove the Winter Fuel Allowance - it creates bitterness. What they meant to say is "we can't afford it for you". And when you see the role the unions of said public sector workers played in the run-up to the election you can start putting the pieces of the jigsaw together for yourselves....which is why teachers are so angry because they feel they got duped or aren't getting their part of the spoils of victory.

There is none. There is nothing to suggest CPZs reduce car ownership. There is plenty of evidence, however, that they generate huge amounts of cash for the councils that implement them and that councils will go out of their way to create parking pressure to try and convince residents they are the right thing. The councils love nothing more than create a problem where none exists so they can charge residents more money. Even more ironically, when Aldred & Co did a survey of the Brixton LTNs car ownership within the LTN actually increased....go figure...

I agree. If we are serious about becoming less dependent on car journeys then we have to facilitate other means for people to get around and if that leads to the inconvenience of having coaches parking near schools then so be it - we need a pragmatic approach. Pragmatism over idealism is the order of the day.

I think because they realise that a lot of people drive to drop their children off at school - I suspect they are being pragmatic.

Why do coaches and police cars sit there with the engines running? Is it just to keep warm/cool or is there some other reason?

But you have to admit the first months of this government have been a disaster. I cannot think of another party that has struggled so much in the first months of leadership. Clearly the rhetoric that they had been preparing for 14 years was just that as it doesn't feel like they spent 14 weeks preparing. I really would struggle if the election was tomorrow and not sure anyone would get my vote. Labour - nothing fills me with confidence that they have what it takes and most of the cabinet are nothing more than glorified local councillors and should be nowhere near a government. Will likely implode. Tories - chasing the Reform vote and lurching further towards the far right will not win them the swing voters. Lib Dems - feels like a wasted vote although they are making some headway after the Coalition disaster. Greens - again wasted vote and even more like local (fringe) councillors Reform - scary populist racists who are a real threat to our country

I notice the signage for the CPZs has gone in now...the cash registers are ringing for the council! The extra long double yellows are following shortly too - just to help create parking pressure so they can have another go at getting an area-wide CPZ.

Ha ha, I love it when anytime anyone disagrees with Labour their supporters accuse them of being rabid right-wing borderline fascists.....normally it's to mask the fact they know Labour are an absolute disaster right now and they're a bit embarrassed as this is not what anyone expected. I am a left leaning centrist and really struggling to find any redeeming features of this government. The dream they promised is fast becoming a living nightmare and I sense they're losing a lot of the people who won them the election. A bit like Brexit a lot of people are getting voters' remorse....

Ha ha Earl.... I certainly think given their own guidance, Dulwich Village was a very strange location for Southwark to put an LTN.

Ha ha, speak for yourself Sephiroth - I can assure you I do not hang out in any right-wing cesspit (unless of course you're part of the bunch who think the BBC is is a right-wing forum!). It is a political disaster - you just can't keep scoring these own goals without it doing long-term harm to your reputation and if Labour fail to get on top of this it is going to be an incredibly rough ride for them and I worry they will play into Reform's hands - and that is something no-one wants to contemplate. For the benefit of everyone they have to do better - and quickly.

Let's cut to the chase Earl, Dulwich Village, given the council's own guidance, seems a very strange location for an LTN don't you think? It seems it was doomed to fail from the outset as the characteristics were not conducive to success.

Which parts of the south of the borough have high PTAL scores? Does Dulwich Village have high PTAL scores? But you realise that LTNs are less likely to succeed in areas that do not have high PTAL scores don't you - it was actually that fact that the council was referring to back in 2018 when they stated the north of the borough was part of the borough to implement them? Why? Because in areas with low PTAL scores there are limited alternatives to car use - something Southwark pointed out in their 2018 Dulwich transport survey that stated....car ownership was high due to, a number of factors, including low PTAL scores.... And if there are limited options what happens when LTNs go in...they displace rather than remove traffic....

TFL's definition of PTAL which can be found here: https://content.tfl.gov.uk/connectivity-assessment-guide.pdf 2.2 What is PTAL? PTAL is a measure of connectivity by public transport, which has been used in various planning processes in London for many years. For any selected place, PTAL suggests how well the place is connected to public transport services. It does not cover trips by car. PTAL values are simple. They range from zero to six, where the highest value represents the best connectivity. For historical reasons, the Setting PTAL value of one is split into two categories (1a and 1b) and the PTAL value of six is split into two categories (6a and 6b). All together there are nine possible values of PTAL: 0, 1a, 1b, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6a and 6b. We often present PTAL values in maps, where a preset set of colours represent the different values. This is described later, in table 2.2. A location will have a higher PTAL if: • It is at a short walking distance to the nearest stations or stops • Waiting times at the nearest stations or stops are short • More services pass at the nearest stations or stops • There are major rail stations nearby • Any combination of all the above.

Now WASPI women are upset...this government is lurching from one disaster to another....I am starting to wonder if they are ever going to be able to recover...it seems it's one own-goal to another.

And here is where Southwark goes against it's own guidance on LTNs (there were others around the 2018 timeframe as well but I cannot find those as Suuthwark has been deleting a lot of stuff) in areas with low PTAL scores (one has to wonder why they thought Dulwich was a good spot and when you look at a lot of their own criteria they have failed to deliver....: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/b50011926/Final reports Wednesday 01-Jul-2020 19.00 Environment Scrutiny Commission.pdf?T=9 Recommendation 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.