Metallic

northernmonkey can't answer proper questions because it is biassed, just as we anti lobby are biased too. So that is even more need to trust the data - and I do not, especially after that incredible meeting last night. Tom was quite a lad, nice to finish off on a positive but wait, what's this, the terminally ill lady called Stephanie just said very loudly 'we don't trust you'. Great last words.

Bicknell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > heartblock Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > 12% decrease in traffic due to Covid across > > London, 14% in Dulwich LTNs with a 25-35% in > > crease in traffic on ED Grove and Croxted and > an > > increase in journey times for public transport. > > Doesn?t seem to be a successful initiative to > > reduce pollution or traffic. > > > and how are elderly and sick affected? noone knws > because council hasnt asked them yet Surely it must have dawned on you? Elderly and sick don't count.

I am astounded the deadline was extended. This can only mean the council's data collection hasn't added up to what they hoped. At the same time, they give data for Dovercourt Road yet not Lordship Lane north? Their picking and choosing is crazy. And what about the closed off roads of East Dulwich - Elsie Road and Derwent Grove? If they are going to cherry pick then they will have to supply all the data to prove they are not hiding something. Of course anyone who tries to rubbish this data presentation who is on Simmons' blacklist, won't get called so all we will hear are the Clean Air Dulwich and pro LTN groups sallying forth, whilst many of us are not at all represented in the meeting.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The background info about all the applications is > here > > https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments > .aspx?CId=533&MId=6871&Ver=4 > > The Court Lane beds stuff was potentially out of > the Devolved Highways Fund, whereas Harmony in the > Square was from the Neighbourhoods Fund. I'm not > sure if there was ever a document explaining the > rationale for which projects were chosen. It > seems to be at the discretion of the local > councillors. Except this is the document that was produced on the night of the awards. I am talking of the night the different groups made their pitch to councillors - it was not minuted/recorded.

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I joined the council meeting on the grants and > seem to remember a long discussion about how the > beds on court needed far more spending on them and > so granting anything from CGS would be > ineffective. Can?t remember the detail any more > but sure it?s in the minutes of that meeting- > there was a summary of each bid and outcome I > think That meeting wasn't minuted, conveniently. It may not be the best use of the funds but it's a darn sight better than a mini Festival, for the benefit of a few homeowners who can't even be bothered to water the planters outside or near their doors and that are there to block traffic for their advantage. Saw this on twitter the other day. While the council are at it could they beautify the rest of the old Area B? I know it has potential.

Tell your councillor, it is what they are for.

randonneur Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Please can you define what you mean by > 'independent survey'. I saw it on Facebook, the Dulwich Alliance page.

This is their problem, they don't want their voices lost in people speaking on the main site. I don't blame them at all. And if you lived on EDG you would probably want to be seen as a huge victim.

?3000. Frankly disgusted since the day it was announced. Better spent on an application that was turned down, to tidy and replant those flower beds going up Court Lane from the Village.

I recommend Chi Gong. You will find you become more physically stretched and you may like the people too. Just google local groups.

Can't wait. Or maybe I can.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Over the weekend it seems the vandal who has been > attacking anti-LTN signs has been on the rampage > again. > > Good to see Clean Air Dulwich saying that this is > not acceptable. Let's hope the person doing it > gets the message as this is bordering on > intimidation. > > https://twitter.com/CleanAirDulwich/status/1411696 > 690353016841?s=19 I think it is intimidation. If my property was vandalised I'm pretty certain I would take it personally. That's why my poster is inside the window.

Could northernmonkey say whether he/she is one of the people who pushed for the closure of Melbourne Grove?

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Metallic Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Have you seen the new leaflet from Dulwich > > alliance? It is on their Facebook page and is > > worth a look. Southwark not releasing any > > information so at least there is some on there. > > > > Personally a bit fed up of not knowing anything > > other than what we pick up from that sort of > > Facebook post, or from twitter. Where are all > the > > councillors and why are they not telling us > > everything rather than just selective bits and > > pieces? > > > Metallic, is this the one where they are saying > they have recorded NO2 levels 3 times higher on > roads like Lordship Lane and Croxted Road than on > the roads within the LTNs like Calton and that the > levels on Lordship Lane etc are now massively > exceeding WHO guidelines since the LTNs went in? > Have DA been monitoring the pollution levels in > lieu of the council doing it? Yes.

Funny they don't deliver any of their stuff to my house, must be the big green poster in the window.

There is a cheese shop opening next to Au Ciel in Dulwich Village.

Have you seen the new leaflet from Dulwich alliance? It is on their Facebook page and is worth a look. Southwark not releasing any information so at least there is some on there. Personally a bit fed up of not knowing anything other than what we pick up from that sort of Facebook post, or from twitter. Where are all the councillors and why are they not telling us everything rather than just selective bits and pieces?

Trust northernmonekey (councillors' helpmate) to put everyone right. Can't you ever accept what people find in their own road, or do you patrol everywhere?

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sorry...I know I?m probably overdoing it today... > but an interesting article on bias in relation to > encouraging cycling using LTNs etc and optimism > bias, by a peer reviewed chief scientist. > > ?Optimism bias > We need to be careful to avoid optimism bias when > projecting the impact of measures to reduce > transport carbon emissions. The models that are > used for this purpose are complex and opaque, with > many input assumptions and parameters to be > specified. Optimism bias arises when modellers > make choices, consciously or unconsciously, that > tend towards achieving a strategic purpose. Yet > optimism bias leads to outcomes that fall short of > those that are forecast. > > It is now part of the culture of transport > planning to foccus on the opportunities for > promoting cycling. But caution is needed. When > addressing the impact of changing mode share, > attention should be paid to the modes from which > the shift to cycling is expected. For instance, > the well-established Propensity to Cycle Tool > (www.pct.bike), which assesses the potential to > increase the amount of cycling, assumes that > commuters are equally likely to shift to cycling > from any prior mode. > > However, the evidence from Copenhagen and > elsewhere indicates that a shift to cycling from > public transport is much more likely than from car > use, which would substantially reduce the carbon > reduction benefits assumed from boosting cycling. > > If optimism bias informs assumptions about mode > shift from cars to bikes, or about the scope for > car sharing, then disappointment is likely to > ensue.? > > David Metz is an honorary professor at the Centre > for Transport Studies UCL. He was formerly the > DfT?s chief scientist. That's more like it!

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Were you just making sure people had the relevant > understanding of the Sunday Times rating in your > last comment then? I think I was saying a piece of "research" from the U of Westminster is not exactly the topmost "research" we should be depending upon. And that you defending it sounds as if, oh, maybe you are her pal?

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Abe_froeman Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I suspect it will reopen shortly after the > council > > have proved that buses on Lordship Lane are not > > being delayed by the new LTNs. > > > > Having fewer stops offsets the impact of the > > increased traffic on bus journey times, so I > don't > > think you can expect this stop to reopen any > time > > earlier than the end of the LTN consultation. > > > How cynical! It may be cynical, but it is what everyone believes!

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I assume the society will update members on the > outcome I guess word will get round.

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That's the overall rating but not reflective > necessarily of individual departments. > > I feel that we've now reached the 'try to > discredit anyone who disagrees with you phase'. > Heartblock made a criticism of the research which > is reasonable to do. Others may disagree with > these comments, but they are not at least focused > on Professor Aldred personally or attempting to > discredit because you feel the University isn't > 'eminent' enough. Come off it.

I'm asking what happened, not the AGM details.

University of Westminster ranking in Sunday Times listings? 126/131