CPZ in Dulwich Village ward to go live on January 6

[Rockets]

On 10/12/2024 at 14:23, Penguin68 said:

For Southwark, in addition, they are part of their stated desire to drive out (sic) privately owned cars from the borough as part of their class warfare objectives. Need I remind you that the north of the borough is very well served by public transport, and where residents have little or no need of private vehicles to lead a normal life, very much not true of much of the south of the borough, poorly served, if at all, by London's public transport, and notoriously not with a flat, Dutch style topology which readily supports unpowered bicycles.

And this is exactly why the council's own guidance was that active travel interventions should only take place in places with high PTAL scores (the north of the borough) where people have a plethora of other travel options.

 

CPZs have nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with revenue generation.

[malumbu]

CPZs discourage driving, particularly journeys that may not be necessary or can be completed by more environmentally friendly means.  Bring them on!

[first mate]

How can CPZ's distinguish between what is a necessary and unnecessary journey?

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

And this is exactly why the council's own guidance was that active travel interventions should only take place in places with high PTAL scores (the north of the borough)

Where is this guidance? All of the policy documents that I have seen have committed the council to action around active travel across the borough. I have not seen anything that states they are only looking to increase walking and cycling in the North.

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

CPZs have nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with revenue generation.

As stated many times before, Councils can’t use parking as a revenue-generating tool. The use of any surplus that results from parking is strictly governed by legislation and is tightly controlled. It can only be used for activities specified in Section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (as amended). These activities include:

• public realm improvements
• road safety initiatives
• freedom passes for disabled people and people over 60

On 10/12/2024 at 14:23, Penguin68 said:

For Southwark, in addition, they are part of their stated desire to drive out (sic) privately owned cars from the borough as part of their class warfare objectives

The most affluent households are far more likely to have access to a car. The negative impact of motorised transport disproportionately affects disadvantaged groups; including transport-related air pollution, climate change and traffic collisions. So a class war perhaps, but not in the way you think.

Edited Tuesday at 12:14 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

The guidance came years ago during meetings the council held about OHS/LTNs etc - I don't have the details of it to hand but somewhere in the annals of this forum there are the references to it and where it came from - it was in the years pre-Covid and around the failed OHS consultation of DV.

27 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

As stated many times before, Councils can’t use parking as a revenue-generating tool. The use of any surplus that results from parking is strictly governed by legislation and is tightly controlled. It can only be used for activities specified in Section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (as amended). These activities include:

• public realm improvements
• road safety initiatives
• freedom passes for disabled people and people over 60

But surely that is still revenue-generating because if you are able to fund those items you highlight above from revenue from CPZs and LTNs then it means you don't have to use other budget sources to fund those activities?

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

But surely that is still revenue-generating because if you are able to fund those items you highlight above from revenue from CPZs and LTNs then it means you don't have to use other budget sources to fund those activities?

Councils are struggling just to fund the services they're legally obliged to provide. If money wasn't raised in this way then they would simply have to do less to improve road safety or invest in the public realm. It doesn't fund, or cross-subsidise any other activities.

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

The guidance came years ago during meetings the council held about OHS/LTNs etc - I don't have the details of it to hand

I don't think this is relevant. Clearly it is not the councils policy that active travel interventions should only take place in the North of the Borough. 

[Rockets]

Not directly but, say, your budget for road safety or public realm is £10m a year and you manage to raise £10m a year from CPZs and LTNs surely you can then turn the £10m you had earmarked for road safety or public realm something else and if that is the case then are they not using CPZs and LTNs to raise revenue to help fund other spending? 

[Earl Aelfheah]

11 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Not directly but, say, your budget for road safety or public realm is £10m a year and you manage to raise £10m a year from CPZs and LTNs surely you can then turn the £10m you had earmarked for road safety or public realm something else and if that is the case then are they not using CPZs and LTNs to raise revenue to help fund other spending? 

I really don't think this is the reality of LA funding. It allows you to do things you otherwise wouldn't do, it's not allowing you to reallocate money you just had sitting there. 

Edited Tuesday at 14:51 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

I imagine it is down to careful phrasing of what you intend to do. So some intentions are explicit and others are kept in mind but not necessarily stated, that way things you might want to do but have yet to raise funds for can be presented as 'new'. 

 

[Kathleen Olander]

Are the private school coaches charged anything by Southwark Council to park on Townley Road, Gallery Road and East Dulwich Grove all day?

[malumbu]

Very unlikely, particularly as school coaches take many cars off the road so smarter and more environmentally friendly 

You could argue of course that if families lived close to school very few children would need to be coached or driven by car to school.

[Kathleen Olander]

1 hour ago, malumbu said:

Very unlikely, particularly as school coaches take many cars off the road so smarter and more environmentally friendly 

You could argue of course that if families lived close to school very few children would need to be coached or driven by car to school.

I just think it's unfair that residents have to pay for permits and those who do not live in or contribute anything to the area park for free.

Plus the amount of these diesel coaches in this small area must be contributing vast amounts of pollution.  They also get to drive through DV and Townley Road during the hours that no-one else can, not even the people that live there.

I find it strange that a Labour council should allow this.

[Rockets]

8 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I don't think this is relevant. Clearly it is not the councils policy that active travel interventions should only take place in the North of the Borough. 

 No but they did say that LTNs should only be deployed in areas with high PTAL scores....which is why they cited the north of the borough....because in the south we have low PTAL scores...that's what makes it relevant.

3 hours ago, Kathleen Olander said:

I find it strange that a Labour council should allow this.

I don't think they have an option. You can't encourage people to stop using cars and then complain if there are more school coaches for parents to get their children to school. I know Clean Air Dulwich embarked on a campaign against the school buses but it was massively misguided especially if your stated aim is to reduce pollution from car traffic....seems a little counter productive to then moan about the car replacement.....

I am still needing to be convinced that councils are not using PCN and CPZ revenue to make their balance sheets look a lot healthier by using that to fund road management etc and free the money originally earmarked for something else.

Wasn't this part of the issue for the council with the CPZ when they failed in their quest to get it area-wide - that they had already "booked" the revenue on their balance sheets for the forthcoming year?

[Kathleen Olander]

11 hours ago, Rockets said:

 No but they did say that LTNs should only be deployed in areas with high PTAL scores....which is why they cited the north of the borough....because in the south we have low PTAL scores...that's what makes it relevant.

I don't think they have an option. You can't encourage people to stop using cars and then complain if there are more school coaches for parents to get their children to school. I know Clean Air Dulwich embarked on a campaign against the school buses but it was massively misguided especially if your stated aim is to reduce pollution from car traffic....seems a little counter productive to then moan about the car replacement.....

I am still needing to be convinced that councils are not using PCN and CPZ revenue to make their balance sheets look a lot healthier by using that to fund road management etc and free the money originally earmarked for something else.

Wasn't this part of the issue for the council with the CPZ when they failed in their quest to get it area-wide - that they had already "booked" the revenue on their balance sheets for the forthcoming year?

But, now that there is to be a CPZ all around the private schools there will be nowhere for private cars to park and drop pupils off.  In my opinion now would be the time to start charging the coaches. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

12 hours ago, Rockets said:

No but they did say that LTNs should only be deployed in areas with high PTAL scores....which is why they cited the north of the borough....because in the south we have low PTAL scores...that's what makes it relevant.

 I really don't think this is what Southwark say. They've clearly implemented LTNs across the borough. 

On the PTAL scores... it varies across the area, as it does for most London neighbourhoods; But the vast majority of East Dulwich is rated between a 3 and 5 ('moderate' to 'very good'). Peckham, Camberwell, and Herne Hill generally have a high ('excellent') PTAL score. The Village is much lower, largely due to it's low density and wide open spaces.

One Dulwich have tried to use PTAL to undermine the case for LTNs in and around Dulwich. I suspect this is because it sounds a bit technical / 'sciencey', and few people know enough to question how 'One' Dulwich use it, or it's relevance to LTNs. If you're in an area that's fairly reliant on bus, bike and foot as the main alternatives to motor vehicles for short journeys, then reducing traffic is just about the best thing you can do in the short to medium term to make getting around easier, safer, and quicker.  

Edited Wednesday at 11:53 by Earl Aelfheah

[Penguin68]

48 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

The Village is much lower, largely due to it's low density and wide open spaces.

I think PTAL scores are a function of the availability of e.g. public transport - clearly where there are wide open spaces and the public transport availability is low then the scores will be as well, but this doesn't stop it meaning that people have to go a long way (longer than those with high scores) to get access to public transport. Or are you thinking that's a trade-off people should accept, whatever their age and disability?

[Rockets]

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. 

Edited Wednesday at 12:31 by Rockets

[Earl Aelfheah]

3 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

I think PTAL scores are a function of the availability of e.g. public transport - clearly where there are wide open spaces and the public transport availability is low then the scores will be as well, but this doesn't stop it meaning that people have to go a long way (longer than those with high scores) to get access to public transport. Or are you thinking that's a trade-off people should accept, whatever their age and disability?

I don't really understand how the first point fits with the last. If you are surrounded by parks and fields, there are large houses/ low density, and fewer roads, then you probably are going to have to walk further to get public transport. You seem to accept that. So I'm not sure what you're suggesting? Buses cutting through parks and playing fields? You could perhaps increase the frequency of buses through the village, but you would still have to walk to the main road.

But point was that a low PTAL (it's not low across most of the local area) does not suggest the need to pursue policies encouraging more motor traffic and congestion and which make it more difficult to get about by foot or bicycle - quite the opposite.

Edited Wednesday at 15:55 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

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.

[Earl Aelfheah]

3 hours ago, Rockets said:

Recommendation 14: Introduce a borough wide programme of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods.

So the recommendation is a borough wide programme of LTNs. Not a policy of only introducing them in the north of the borough?

3 hours ago, Rockets said:

As a priority in areas with high levels of public transport (high PTAL ratings)

This is about where to prioritise changes, not where to restrict changes to.

1 minute ago, Rockets said:

A location will have a higher PTAL if:

• It is at a short walking distance to the nearest stations or stops

Exactly. Dulwich Village buses pass through the centre of the village. It's surrounded by big houses / is low density. It also has a number of large open spaces, parks and fields. So there are fewer people within a short walk from the bus. 

[Rockets]

1 minute ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

So the recommendation is a borough wide programme of LTNs. Not a policy of only introducing them in the north of the borough?

Which parts of the south of the borough have high PTAL scores? Does Dulwich Village have high PTAL scores?

 

2 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

This is about where to prioritise changes, not where to restrict changes to.

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....

 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

26 minutes ago, Rockets said:

42 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

So the recommendation is a borough wide programme of LTNs. Not a policy of only introducing them in the north of the borough?

Which parts of the south of the borough have high PTAL scores? Does Dulwich Village have high PTAL scores?

That's quite the non sequitur:

1. You claimed Southwark said LTNs should only be deployed in the north of the borough. You've then quoted them saying the opposite. 
2. I've already named some of the areas in the South of the borough with high PTAL scores, including Herne Hill, Peckham, Camberwell and parts of East Dulwich.
3. I've explicitly said that the Village does not have a high PTAL score and explained some of the reasons for why that might be. 
4. I have said why I believe that a high PTAL score does not suggest one should avoid interventions that reduce motor traffic, or improve the ease and safety of walking and cycling, but the opposite.

26 minutes ago, Rockets said:

42 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

This is about where to prioritise changes, not where to restrict changes to.

But you realise that LTNs are less likely to succeed in areas that do not have high PTAL scores don't you

Again, that's quite the non-sequitur.

What you have quoted does refer to where to prioritise changes, not where to restrict changes to, as you wrongly claimed.

Might I suggest that there is some deflection going on? 

Edited Wednesday at 16:40 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

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.

 

 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

19 minutes ago, Rockets said:

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.

What guidance? You have quoted Southwark council as recommending:

4 hours ago, Rockets said:

a borough wide programme of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods

Dulwich Village is in the borough. It's also just one of several LTNs the council have introduced across Southwark.

Edited Wednesday at 17:04 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

Ha ha Earl....

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