CPZ in Dulwich Village ward to go live on January 6

[exdulwicher]

9 minutes ago, Bicknell said:

@DulvilleRes

Ptal doc from Tfl Assessing transport connectivity in London

cant see anything on housing  density

could u explain again thank you

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.

[Rockets]

53 minutes ago, DulvilleRes said:

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.

No it scores poorly because transport links are poor. As Bicknell rightly points out you'll struggle to find any reference to housing density in council reports about PTAL scores in Dulwich.

In the 2018 Trnasport report for Dulwich the council cited poor PTAL scores for, in part, high car ownership. The council then stated that interventions should only happen in areas with high PTAL scores. Dulwich got interventions yet has poor PTAL scores.

Why? Maybe because of the misleading lobbying folks like you did.

There is clearly no clear case for them, per the council, in Dulwich Village.

[Earl Aelfheah]

This is a thread about the CPZ

[Rockets]

Which are part of the council's stated approach on LTNs - they are intertwined...:-)

[Earl Aelfheah]

14 hours ago, Rockets said:

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. 

No.  This is what happened. It followed a familiar pattern. You said some things that are demonstrably untrue:

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)

and…

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

they [Southwark] did say that LTNs should only be deployed in areas with high PTAL scores....which is why they cited the north of the borough

You then show yourself to be wrong, but bizarrely claim vindication 🤦‍♂️

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

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

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.

Edited yesterday at 00:07 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

🙂 Other interpretations may exist...

Edited Monday at 19:18 by Rockets

[Earl Aelfheah]

10 minutes ago, Rockets said:

🙂 Other interpretations may exist...

Yes, thoroughly dishonest ones. As anyone can see.

Edited Monday at 19:27 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

On 20/12/2024 at 15:38, Earl Aelfheah said:

exdulwicher is right about the funding of projects like the Dulwich LTN not being directly funded or linked to CPZs. It was funded by the UK government's Emergency Active Travel Fund initially. Guy’s and St Thomas’ charity also funded some low-traffic neighbourhoods elsewhere in the borough, to tackle air pollution and obesity. I know you are not in favour of the changes made to road layouts 4 years ago, but this thread isn't about that. 

Hmmm, hold your horses Earl and Ex- I did some fact checking for you and according to Southwark’s latest Parking Report of the £17m surplus made from CPZ parking costs, PCNs etc over £2m of that was used to fund “LTN costs”, which throws your statement into some considerable doubt.

Edited yesterday at 12:09 by Rockets