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 December 24, 2024 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

🙂 Other interpretations may exist...

Edited December 23, 2024 by Rockets

[Earl Aelfheah]

10 minutes ago, Rockets said:

🙂 Other interpretations may exist...

Yes, thoroughly dishonest ones. As anyone can see.

Edited December 23, 2024 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 December 24, 2024 by Rockets

[tiddles]

I noticed on Monday 23rd as we left for family Xmas - lordship lane was rammed and hugely busy. Driving thru Dulwich Village it was dead… all those small independent businesses did not have anything like the footfall… well how wonderful for Southwark to destroy a local business hub by limiting parking and access… 

[Cancerian]

I drove along Townley Road going towards Lordship Lane just before Christmas and the new signs (covered in black material) are ready to go live on 6th January I guess. 

[malumbu]

4 hours ago, tiddles said:

I noticed on Monday 23rd as we left for family Xmas - lordship lane was rammed and hugely busy. Driving thru Dulwich Village it was dead… all those small independent businesses did not have anything like the footfall… well how wonderful for Southwark to destroy a local business hub by limiting parking and access… 

Have you walked or cycling led down to the Village.  Thoroughly recommend it.  

[first mate]

7 hours ago, malumbu said:

Have you walked or cycling led down to the Village.  Thoroughly recommend

I suspect many have always walked and cycled in and continue to do so. The current arrangement makes little difference to that, it simply replaces cars that wait at the junction with cyclists that tend to ignore the red lights. On Friday I saw a Lime bike rider choose to use the pedestrianised area to cycle over, perhaps to shave a millisecond off his journey or perhaps because, as others have said, the demarcation between what was road and the rest of the paving is not clear.

On 24/12/2024 at 11:50, Rockets said:

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.

Oh, how very telling!

[Penguin68]

8 hours ago, malumbu said:

Have you walked or cycling led down to the Village.  Thoroughly recommend it. 

Nice diversionary tactic, but the point being made was about the comparative difference in trading activity between the outlets in the Village and those in L Lane. Obviously the walkers and particularly the cyclists are not buying stuff, is the impression gathered. So, soon enough, goodbye the shops. But as they are managed by small independent traders, no problems to the kulak hating council, I'm guessing. Why, some of them may even own private vehicles. Drive them out! Which is what they're doing. 

[malumbu]

It's not a diversionary tactic.  It amused me that the post was someone who was driving and as such would have a carcentric view of the world.  You don't drive to the Village fro a big shop.  The CPZ is focused on those that drive their kids to schools and allows parking to shop the rest of the day.  That's  a good thing.

[tiddles]

No but you might drive there to visit into the various shops before popping over to west Dulwich to say, the garden centre??? Then rosendale road perhaps. These shops used to rely on passing trade - people dropping in en route. The new schemes make these businesses rely on the immediate residents’ trade. Yes people do cycle (I do in dry conditions) but if I’m planning to carry stuff I use the car. 

[first mate]

 

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.
 

Neither Earl, Ex or Malumbu have responded to this, I wonder why?

[malumbu]

23 hours ago, tiddles said:

No but you might drive there to visit into the various shops before popping over to west Dulwich to say, the garden centre??? Then rosendale road perhaps. These shops used to rely on passing trade - people dropping in en route. The new schemes make these businesses rely on the immediate residents’ trade. Yes people do cycle (I do in dry conditions) but if I’m planning to carry stuff I use the car. 

You can still drive to the village if you wish, and in your case have justification, just not at school drop off time.  Lambeth also have parking restrictions you may need to work round.

Why should I report motorists having to pay for parking, or paying fines when I agree with this FM?

[first mate]

14 hours ago, malumbu said:

You can still drive to the village if you wish, and in your case have justification, just not at school drop off time.  Lambeth also have parking restrictions you may need to work round.

Why should I report motorists having to pay for parking, or paying fines when I agree with this FM?

Malumbu, that second sentence, addressed to me, must be one of the most misleading responses you have ever given.

I'll repeat what I said none of you had yet responded to- in regard to the relationship between CPZ and LTN. The fact checking was by Rockets.

On 31/12/2024 at 07:13, first mate said:

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.
 

Neither Earl, Ex or Malumbu have responded to this, I wonder why?

 

Edited Wednesday at 08:28 by first mate

[Rockets]

On 01/01/2025 at 08:27, first mate said:

I'll repeat what I said none of you had yet responded to- in regard to the relationship between CPZ and LTN. The fact checking was by Rockets.

Facts well and truly checked and clearly some glaring inaccuracies being peddled by some in relation to whether LTNs are being funded from council revenue generation from CPZs etc and whether CPZs are being installed for the purpose of revenue generation to fund such projects - it seems their claims of there being no link was nonsense...see the new thread for factual analysis....;-) But clearly the council need more CPZs to keep funding their LTN plans - which, by default is revenue generation.

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 24/12/2024 at 11:50, Rockets said:

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.

You could just read what I've said. Southwark can't implement a CPZ for the purpose of generating income - only for managing traffic (there are specific conditions, I've linked you to the regulations, which describe these in detail if you're interested). If after covering the cost of implementing and administering the scheme there is a surplus, then there are also strict rules about how that might be used. This does include road safety and public realm improvements would include things like filtered streets, bike lanes, expanded pedestrian spaces etc. (as I've stated). exdulwicher is right about the introduction of the Dulwich LTN being funded by the UK government's Emergency Active Travel Fund initially. 

I think your real issue may be your opposition to the types of investments being made in the public realm, road safety and the environment, rather than the principle itself. That's fine, but maybe say that. Again, this isn't a thread about some changes to road layout introduced 4 years ago.

Edited Friday at 11:06 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

But Southwark's own documents show that CPZ revenue is spent on funding LTNs. Are you now saying those documents are inaccurate or that you know better?

It is all a bit playing with words. LTNs may help create conditions that make the case for a CPZ and that then generates revenue that is currently placed under some rather vague surplus headings, like environmental and housing and community. It is all very interlinked.

So, CPZ revenue has been used to fund unwanted and unnecessary projects like Vanity Square, even though, and this is something that requires greater scrutiny, the DV LTN is said by Southwark Council not to be a 'true' LTN. 

Edited Friday at 11:37 by first mate

[Earl Aelfheah]

If you're really interested in local authority funding / budgets, why don't you look at the publicly available financial statements published online and / or write to your councillor? Despite what some believe, there is no great secrecy.

I understand that you don't like the changes to road layout introduced several years ago, but it's really not linked to controlled parking or enforcement of bus lanes in the way you think (i.e. some sort of conspiracy). Southwark are fairly clear about the rationale for a CPZ (whether you agree or not is completely different) and the fact that a monomaniac got caught in a bus lane is not really relevant to any of this.

[Rockets]

This is why this is so important and why many on here were trying to convince people that CPZ and PCN revenue was not being used to fund LTNs (the post on the thread are very clear).

Because the moment you establish that link it exposes the council to accusations that it is robbing Peter to pay Paul and that there is a motivation to make as much revenue as possible from CPZs and PCNs - and that it is nothing to do with climate change etc.

That they then over-aggressively target motorists, many of whom are likely working people, to fund LTNs being demanded by a small group of lobbyists in Dulwich Village and within the Dulwich Society. 

Not very socialist at all and takes the council into champagne socialist/Tory behaviour territory. Entrap motorists to fund nice new paving for Dulwich Square...

[first mate]

@Earl Aelfheah Another standard copy and paste pro LTN/CPZ lobbyist handbook response. This is almost word for word what Malumbu writes when he is stuck for an answer.

No need to ask the council, Rockets has published clear evidence from the council that CPZ are a council revenue raising tool.

What is very clear is that the very recently completed LTN changes in Dulwich Village, including the million pound, unwanted,  Vanity Square are closely linked to the brand new, soon to be activated, Dulwich Village CPZ, also unwanted by the majority of consultation respondents, but necessary for Southwark Council to glean revenue and fund its fanatical follies.

Edited Friday at 11:58 by first mate

[Earl Aelfheah]

Literally it has been pointed out that yes, surplus can be used for various things including filtered streets, bike lanes, expanded pedestrian spaces multiple times. You've been linked to the relevant legislation, you've been linked to Southwark's budget. Now that information has landed (several pages later 🙄) you seem to think you've uncovered some secret conspiracy.

You do understand that all the words people have written are recorded right and that LA spending and regulation is not hidden. 

On 20/12/2024 at 08:39, Earl Aelfheah said:

Here is a link to the relevant legislation that strictly regulates how the money raised can be used if you’re interested

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/55 

Yes, it is. If you read my previous post I have listed some of the ways it can be used. 

(👆🏾this one)

Road safety and public realm improvements would include things like filtered streets, bike lanes, expanded pedestrian spaces etc.

We now have people trying to suggest that because they got fined for driving in a bus lane that it's somehow relevant to a CPZ and changes made to a junction 4 years ago. I would suggest that the simpler explanation is that they got fined for driving in a bus lane because they were driving in a bus lane.

The council cannot introduce a CPZ for the purposes of generating income. If you think that this is what they're doing, then you should make a complaint to the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman.

Edited Friday at 13:29 by Earl Aelfheah