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 4 hours ago 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 4 hours ago 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 4 hours ago 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 3 hours ago 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 2 hours ago 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