exdulwicher

I was going to suggest line dancing but Rockets might cross the line when turning left so that's out...

I've got visions of this... Which one is Rockets?

Page 6. The definition of Suburban / Urban / Central, each split into 3 sub-tiers of Habitable Rooms per Unit (a unit being a house, block of flats, apartments etc) per Hectare. As I mentioned previously, the original use was as a planning tool to aid in calculating the number of parking spaces that should be provided in new developments which is why housing density is a part of it. Have a read of Page 10 which explains some of the limitations of PTAL as well.

It was on the cards for YEARS - originally proposed as part of a Healthy Streets plan (I think), that then got swallowed by Covid and redesigned as part of the Covid / active travel stuff. It was proposed because nothing else will ever make that junction work. The council had tinkered with it for years, they tried to to re-prioritise bits of it, I'm sure at one point there was a yellow box junction within it, there were corresponding measure like speed humps on Court Lane, banning the school coaches from using it, closing off the old cut through around the back via Gilkes Crescent (which was done WAY back, basically making Gilkes one long LTN, before "LTN" was a term) Nothing worked, it remained a congested and dangerous junction. There were also the plans for a network of Quietway cycle routes (this also going way back) and in fact it was branded as such, the laughable bit being that while Turney Road was OK and Calton up to Greendale was OK, the bit through the village was chaos, far from what TfL were proposing as "Quietways". Basically, the work done has mitigated all the issues in one go. Its not perfect but then no road scheme ever is. CPZ is a complementary measure to the other parts. Like treating an illness - you don't "just" have surgery, you have a range of treatments that work together. Surgery on it's own is not as effective as surgery plus chemotherapy for example. And, as has been studied and reported on numerous times, the best ways of reducing car use, congestion, road danger etc are Congestion Charging, limited traffic interventions (such as LTNs but can also included School Streets, cul-de-sacs etc) and parking controls. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/apr/16/12-most-effective-ways-cars-cities-europe And by the way, the consultation was not "should we do a CPZ? Yes/No", it was "we are doing a CPZ, what roads do you think it should cover and what times would you prefer?"

I love how you try to use PTAL. 🙄 It was originally a planning tool, actually to help developers work out car park spaces. It's a very basic system and while it's still useful for "at a glance" stuff, it's long been superseded by accessibility matrices and spatial heatmap tools. PTAL calculates walking distance from bus and train (inc tube, DLR etc) stops assuming: an average walking speed of 80m / min that people are willing to walk up to 8 min for a bus and 12 mins for a train so distances of 640m and 960m respectively. It does take into account service level (so a bus every 10 mins is better than one every 15 mins) but it doesn't take into account the destination. Therefore, as pointed out, an area like Dulwich made up of large open spaces like the Park, school playing fields etc will NEVER have a "good" PTAL score. So you could improve PTAL by building over all of that then running some roads (and bus stops) through it. Or... You know what does improve PTAL? Making it easier to walk (and cycle, although that's not explicitly calculated by PTAL). If you have to cross 3 busy roads, each with a wait of 3 minutes before the green man, that's a serious limitation on PTAL, people are less likely to walk. If you can create a direct walking route - maybe by, oh I dunno, removing the traffic from Dulwich Square say - you can eliminate the wait and effectively shorten the walking time. This works for cycling too (although as I say, it's not specifically included in the calculation) but if you can make it easy to cycle (minimising through traffic, more cycle routes, e-bike/e-scooter hire...) then it's easy to pick a bike up and ride a distance that would be annoyingly far to walk, like to HH or West Dulwich stations or to bus stops on the South Circular. Decent active travel infrastructure widens the catchment area for public transport by up to 10x therefore dramatically increasing PTAL And by the way, "poor" PTAL does not mean poor public transport. It's a comparison tool and PTAL of 5, 6a and 6b is basically "the centre of London". And even there, you have blocks of space like Kensington Gardens, Regent's Park etc with PTAL of 1a, 1b and 2.

It's entirely separate to the point of the thread which is CPZ but it came from the Southwark's Streets for People strategy: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking-streets-and-transport/improving-streets-and-spaces/streets-people/dulwich-projects/dulwich-village which is funded from a variety of sources. DfT, what used to be (under the previous Government) called the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC), TfL (via their Liveable Neighbourhoods Programme) and the Government's Safer Streets Fund which I think is on Tranche 5 now (since it was launched in 2020) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/safer-streets-fund-round-five/safer-streets-fund. There's probably something from Active Travel England in there too. That;s entirely normal for any large-scale intervention like that, there's no way it could be funded from CPZ surplus. Edit: none of the above is any great secret or conspiracy by the way, it's literally all there on Southwark's website. I'm sure if you emailed the highways team they could probably supply you a breakdown of which funds came from where.

You could just read the Parking Reports, they're all online: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking-streets-and-transport/parking/parking-annual-monitoring-reports Re the funding - almost all transport interventions come from grants. It's a bit more confusing in London because TfL will often pay some of it so there'll be some money from central Government in the form of a pot of money for sustainable transport or highways repair or community projects which councils (from anywhere) can bid for. Government announce this sort of thing all the time - a pot of £1bn for this, that or the other, councils bid for a portion of it and are awarded some money if the bid is accepted. Councils can supplement that with their own money, money from developers (called a Section 106 which you can read about here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/planning-obligations ) and, in London, maybe some cash from TfL as well.

Because it can't be used for that. Government regulations require CPZ schemes to be self-financing: they cannot be financed from council tax. The charge will need to cover the implementation of the scheme, administration and enforcement costs. Any cash surplus goes into a ‘parking fund’, which is primarily used to fund the concessionary fares which provides free travel for elderly and disabled people. The CPZ is not (directly) connected to LTNs or to Dulwich Square. However, parking restrictions can form part of a range of measures such as LTNs to generally discourage parking especially around hotspot areas like schools and stations which, by their very nature, tend to attract short periods of very high usage (like school drop-off / pick-up times). With schools, you can sometimes address this by use of School Streets (short term "closures" of the road in front of the school to prevent the stereotypical School Run Mum parking the SUV eight inches from the gate) however in an area such as Dulwich where you have many schools within a very short distance of each other, a CPZ makes more sense than trying to close off areas in front of Alleyn's, JAGS, Dulwich Hamlet etc.

Let me know when a cyclist destroys a marble fountain and we can discuss it.

It isn't, they use RTC. Road Traffic Collision. Accident would imply that no-one was at fault but in a road collision, especially one with injuries, there may be a future criminal prosecution (for, eg, careless driving, driving under the influence etc) so they deliberately do NOT use accident.

I reckon that if that was 46 recorded incidents of Lime bikes / Lime e-scooters hitting "things" (be that people walking or cycling, cars, solid objects) you'd be calling it a bloodbath of epic proportions and wanting them banned immediately.

Bear in mind, while you're all discussing whether it's 60 or 200 or whatever, that CrashMap only relates to personal injury accidents on public roads that are reported to the police, and subsequently recorded, using the STATS19 accident reporting form. Information on damage-only accidents, with no human casualties or accidents on private roads or in car parks are not included. So the poor fountain died for nothing cos it won't be recorded on there. Which means that the number of actual crashes will be significantly higher than shown on that map.

It's clearly the fault of the fountain cos it's not wearing a helmet or hi-vis and doesn't pay any road tax. Really, it got what it deserved. Equally likely of course is that a poor innocent driver was proceeding entirely legally when suddenly a swarm (herd? flock?) of e-scooterists, Lime bikers and e-cargo bikes hurtled out of nowhere forcing the poor fountain into taking evasive action and it leapt into the path of the car. Could happen to any driver.

Oh God, I can already visualise this in an estate agent window: "nestled in the heart of the Upper Dulwich quadrant is this modest 7 bedroom 5 bathroom apartment...." And then overhearing a conversation, maybe at a posh cafe, along the lines of "well, I live in Upper Dulwich you know...yes it's a charming little place, only the 7 bedrooms but we get by... Nanny of course has the attic room..."

I feel I'm being misquoted or at least selectively quoted. It is very easy to check for and compensate for inaccuracies by cross-referencing with other sources of data. No-one is using these in isolation, they are there to support other sources. If there are wild disagreements between what the sensor is saying and what congestion monitoring, manual traffic counts, video feeds, bus journey times etc are all saying then you can investigate further, maybe disregard the bad stuff, reposition the sensor, apply a correction factor etc. You would also have a look for local events that could have caused a change to the normal traffic pattern. And as I also mentioned, you do not need to count every vehicle on every road and the idea that even a single vehicle missed is some kind of "OMG, teh D4tA i5 BAD!!!" gotcha is simply not true. The fact is that even "bad data" can be very useful in highlighting issues and errors.