Earl Aelfheah

Yes, thoroughly dishonest ones. As anyone can see.

No. This is what happened. It followed a familiar pattern. You said some things that are demonstrably untrue: and… You then show yourself to be wrong, but bizarrely claim vindication 🤦‍♂️ So to summarise: You made a false claim (that Southwark's 'own guidance' is that LTNs should only be implemented in the North of the Borough) You then repeated it several more times, despite my politely suggesting that I did not think it was right You then quoted and posted links to documents that directly contradicted what you said, thereby proving your own mistake. When confronted with this, instead of just saying- oh yeh, perhaps I was mistaken, you doubled down. It's dishonest and embarrassing.

This is a thread about the CPZ

I’ve read the document. It does not say that LTNs should only be deployed in areas with high PTAL scores or cite the north of the borough as an example, as you have repeatedly claimed: The document you have linked to explicitly calls for a borough wide programme of LTNs, which is exactly the policy they have pursued. Dulwich is not the only LTN in Southwark, but one of many created across the borough. And again, this thread is about the CPZ, not the LTN.

You have again linked to a document from Southwark that calls for a “borough wide programme of low traffic neighbourhoods”.

This 👆🏾 is not true, and this 👇… Also posted by you and quoting council guidance, proves it; completely contradicting the previous post. It’s embarrassing that rather than simply correct a mistake, you double down and deflect. It’s a repeated pattern of deliberately spreading misinformation. It’s a shame admin continues to allow you to do this in pursuit of your monomaniacal obsession with an LTN introduced 4 years ago now.

Embarrassing

Where do the council say that either LTNs or CPZs should only be implemented in areas with a high PTAL, or only in the north of the borough? That’s a ‘clever’ response, when challenged on something you’ve repeatedly claimed that is demonstrably false. Well done.

I don't understand what your point is. You keep claiming that the council recommends LTNs only be implemented in areas with a high PTAL / and only in the north of the borough, but then quote them saying the opposite; that they recommend a borough wide programme of LTNs.

You’ve literally quoted them recommending a borough wide programme of LTNs

A location will have a higher PTAL if it is at a short walking distance to the nearest stations or stops. If you live in an area with lots of playing fields and parks and where there are lots of big detached houses with big gardens spread out across fewer streets, then stops will tend to be further away for many of the residents in that area. What is more, an area that is more dependent on car, bus, bicycle or foot to get about, needs action to cut down on congestion just as much, if not more than areas where public transport is easy to access. Lastly, Southwark do no have guidance saying that LTNs or other active travel measure should only happen in the north of the borough, or in areas with a high PTAL as repeatedly claimed. So can we please stop spreading this misinformation? The council have been very clear about their desire to make the borough safer, and greener; to reduce traffic, congestion and pollution, and encourage active travel. They were elected on that basis. They probably believe that controlled parking is part of a strategy to achieve those things. Plus, there are problems with dangerous and inconsiderate parking around the school at particular times, which again, they probably believe this will help address. Not everything is a conspiracy.

A lolly pop lady doesn’t have anything to do with parking. It wasn’t in Southwark’s guidance. See the chat above. Southwark’s guidance recommends borough wide LTNs. And again, this thread is about CPZs

Are you saying you’re against potential improvements to the public realm and the environment from a potential surplus? I don’t get the point.

Fair enough. If you think there is no issue with congestion or parking, then maybe a CPZ isn’t needed. Again, not sure what that has to do with either the square / LTN (this thread is about CPZ), or PTAL.

You could massively increase the frequency of buses running through the village. Many people would still have the same long walk to the bus stop. the fact is that the lack of density in terms of housing, the many, wide open spaces, are a significant factor in the Vilage’s relatively low PTAL I also do not understand how a relatively low PTAL somehow makes the argument against a CPZ? What’s the link in your mind?