CPZ in Dulwich Village ward to go live on January 6

[Rockets]

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....

 

 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

27 minutes ago, Rockets said:

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...

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

On 18/12/2024 at 12:17, Rockets said:

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

 

 

Edited Sunday at 13:48 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

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....

 

 

Edited Sunday at 13:51 by Rockets

[Earl Aelfheah]

15 minutes ago, Rockets said:

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 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. 

Edited Sunday at 13:59 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

43 minutes ago, exdulwicher said:

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. 

To make that a reality you would have to block the cyclists whizzing through, many ignoring red lights. I could not think of a worse example to try to illustrate your point, it just does not seem convincing, having witnessed what actually goes on at Dulwich Sq.

17 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

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. 

But Rockets was talking about CPZ wasn't he, Earl. And, as you have kept saying, this is a thread about CPZ. 

I have already cited the Council's own document on its various interventions where it states what it needs to do to effect its Streets for People initiatives in Dulwich Village and CPZ is one of them. It states it needs to reduce car use and one way is via CPZ.

[Rockets]

37 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I don't understand what your point is.

🙂

[Earl Aelfheah]

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?

10 minutes ago, Rockets said:

🙂

That’s a ‘clever’ response, when challenged on something you’ve repeatedly claimed that is demonstrably false. Well done.

Edited Sunday at 14:40 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

On 18/12/2024 at 12:17, Rockets said:

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. 

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 🙂

[Earl Aelfheah]

Embarrassing 

[first mate]

Embarrassing to who? What Rockets says in outlining the council agenda on LTNs seems very clear.

-For Dulwich Village LTN

-What evidence of poor air quality?

-It is low PTAL area and has poor public transport

-It has high levels of car ownership (hence council case for imposition of CPZ)

-It is not a deprived area

-What evidence it impacts positively on a local hospital?

-What evidence it impacts positively on local schools?

 

I can only see one condition that is possibly met and that is the last, although we would need hard data to show that.

Edited Sunday at 15:21 by first mate

[Rockets]

34 minutes ago, Rockets said:

On 18/12/2024 at 12:17, Rockets said:

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. 

 

2 hours ago, exdulwicher said:

And by the way, "poor" PTAL does not mean poor public transport.

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

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 17/12/2024 at 11:03, Rockets said:

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)

This 👆🏾 is not true, and this 👇…

On 18/12/2024 at 12:17, Rockets said:

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

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.

Edited Sunday at 20:55 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

I would venture that guidance is different from a recommendation. Perhaps the former is about existing policy and the latter about what the council would like to happen. Rather like the council recommended borough-wide CPZ but then had to back down from it.

Wherever they are placed, high PTALS seem to be one of the conditions the council has stated for prioritising an LTN and I would think there are more high PTALS areas in the north than south of the borough.

The real question is that given the various conditions the council has outlined for prioritising LTNs, how Dulwich Village ever got one? 

 

Edited Sunday at 21:09 by first mate

[Rockets]

On 18/12/2024 at 12:17, Rockets said:

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

🙂 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.

Edited Sunday at 22:17 by Rockets

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 17/12/2024 at 23:19, Rockets said:

LTNs should only be deployed in areas with high PTAL scores....which is why they cited the north of the borough

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

Edited Sunday at 22:46 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

40 minutes ago, Rockets said:

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. 

 

🙂 #alwaysreadallthedocument

Edited Sunday at 22:57 by Rockets

[Earl Aelfheah]

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:

On 17/12/2024 at 23:19, Rockets said:

No but they [Southwark Council] did say that LTNs should only be deployed in areas with high PTAL scores....which is why they cited the north of the borough.

 

On 18/12/2024 at 16:13, Rockets said:

they [Southwark] stated the north of the borough was part of the borough to implement them [LTNs]

 

On 17/12/2024 at 11:03, 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)

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. 

Edited Monday at 09:02 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

Oh well Earl, we'll agree to disagree then! It's pretty clear what the council said and, as I said previously, they also cited the north of the borough in other documents. If you refuse to believe it thats up to you but the words written by the council in the document i posted are pretty clear and definitive. 🙂

Edited Monday at 09:08 by Rockets

[DulvilleRes]

11 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Oh well Earl, we'll agree to disagree then! 🙂

A common response by Rockets when called out on factual inaccuracy. When the evidence is staring you in the face you are wrong, why not just admit it? 

[Rockets]

No, a common response when Rockets presents evidence that some steadfastly refuse to acknowledge. And a response Rockets uses when they refuse to get dragged into the usual death-spiral argument. I have made my point (very conclusively with evidence) to counter the position taken by others. Said others refuse to acknowledge the evidence. That's fine, that's their prerogative and I have been posting long enough on this forum to know that some will never change their behaviour and the denial approach is an often-used tactic. The problem is, as much as some would like, you can't rewrite history - it's there in black and white. 

Here's how these discussions go:

- I say the council said something

- Someone says no they didn't

- I post evidence that shows the council did say it

- People say no that's not right and then try to construct some ludicrous argument to take the discussion in a different direction. 

- Repeat ad nauseum 

Dulville, one presumes you are a resident of Dulwich Village, just tell me which parts of Dulwich Village have a high PTAL........

🙂 

Edited Monday at 10:19 by Rockets

[exdulwicher]

15 hours ago, first mate said:

The real question is that given the various conditions the council has outlined for prioritising LTNs, how Dulwich Village ever got one? 

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?"

[Rockets]

The council initially made changes to the junction that increased congestion and pollution (data from their own report back in 2017, I believe)

There was an OHS consultation and the council failed to get enough local support to roll out new measures. These were in the days when they felt they had to respect local consultation feedback.

Covid struck and the council saw the opportunity to make changes under emergency Covid rules (without the need for a consultation) - remember the closure was rolled out on the basis of "social distancing".

They then partnered with an emboldened and empowered active-travel/cycle lobby/activist groups to fast-track their changes through ignoring the views of the majority of local residents.

Of course I am sure some of the usual suspects will challenge this version of events but that's certainly an accurate summation of the timeline of events from someone who was paying close attention since pre-OHS days.

[first mate]

Just my own experience, but since these measures I have seen increased traffic in surrounding streets, I honestly feel the only beneficiaries are the able-bodied and wealthy few (including, I believe some councillors) who wanted their own little car-free sector. It seems to me they have put in every possible intervention to achieve that aim...it is almost like a gated community.

There used to be queues of cars at rush hour, but never for long and always manageable. The junction worked, in my view. Problems occurred when there was building work or roadworks.
 

I have noticed absolutely no difference or extra benefit to when I walk or cycle. For when I have to use a car, I still use one. I do not make fewer journeys as a result of these interventions, they simply take longer and use more petrol.

Edited Monday at 13:53 by first mate

[DulvilleRes]

5 hours ago, Rockets said:

No, a common response when Rockets presents evidence that some steadfastly refuse to acknowledge. And a response Rockets uses when they refuse to get dragged into the usual death-spiral argument. I have made my point (very conclusively with evidence) to counter the position taken by others. Said others refuse to acknowledge the evidence. That's fine, that's their prerogative and I have been posting long enough on this forum to know that some will never change their behaviour and the denial approach is an often-used tactic. The problem is, as much as some would like, you can't rewrite history - it's there in black and white. 

Here's how these discussions go:

- I say the council said something

- Someone says no they didn't

- I post evidence that shows the council did say it

- People say no that's not right and then try to construct some ludicrous argument to take the discussion in a different direction. 

- Repeat ad nauseum 

Dulville, one presumes you are a resident of Dulwich Village, just tell me which parts of Dulwich Village have a high PTAL........

🙂

As has been explained to you, ad nausem, Dulwich scores lower than other parts of the Borough, because of the lack of density of housing. However, that is not to say that it isn't well served by public transport. Three major rail stations within 15 mins walk, plus decent bus routes. You really should try spending time in other UK cities to understand just how well-connected we are.

As a keen commentator and observer on local politics - so many of your posts end with a critique of the council - I have a question for you in return; when it comes to the LTN's, and the campaigning against them, where have all the local Conservatives gone? Prospective Conservative council candidates used to head up campaigns such as the Dulwich Alliance, and then suddenly they seemed to evaporate from public view, although funnily enough they do still end up asking official questions of the Council on the issues raised by One Dulwich. In the interests of transparency in local democracy, maybe you could shed some light on this?   

[Bicknell]

@DulvilleRes

Ptal doc from Tfl Assessing transport connectivity in London

cant see anything on housing  density

could u explain again thank you