Rockets

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dulwich PT is not AMAZING - it is a very low PTAL > score > > PTAL is a London system, it's not used elsewhere > (or at least, not in anything like that form). In > London, it's used mainly as an aid to planning > developments. Areas with low PTAL are required to > have more parking - it sort of accepts that as P/T > isn't as good therefore more people will use > private cars which is a bit of a catch-22 in > itself since it entrenches car use. > > However the "not as good" is in comparison to high > PTAL areas. You're comparing "leafy Dulwich" with > central London! Of course in central London you're > no more than a few minutes from a Tube or bus, > you've got large terminus stations... In Dulwich, > there are far fewer roads and a lot of green space > - playing fields, the park etc where if you're in > the middle of that, of course there's zero density > of P/T! > > Whilst PTAL is a simple calculation (easily > performed by a spreadsheet) that offers an obvious > indication of the density of public transport > provision in an area, it suffers three key > problems: > > It does not take into account where services > actually go to ? for example, a bus that runs > every ten minutes to the bottom of the road is > considered better than a bus that runs every > twelve minutes to the city centre. > The use of arbitrary cut-offs to exclude more > distant service access points underestimates the > ability to access locations just outside those > cut-off distances. For example, a point 960m from > King's Cross could have a PTAL of 6, whilst a > point 961m from the same station could have a PTAL > of 1 or 2. > It does not take into account how crowded the > services are. If you stand outside Victoria > Station on a weekday rush hour (ignoring Covid for > the moment), you're in a PTAL 6 zone. Try getting > down onto the Circle or District Line platforms > though! > > I do wish the same old "PTAL scores are really > low" argument would die. It's low compared to high > density P/T in central London. You will literally > never replicate that in Dulwich, not without tens > of billions of ?? investment in trams, a Tube line > or two and some bus-only routes (the latter of > which means closing some roads to cars and/or > removing parking). > > There are more detailed models available - > accessibility modelling gives you colour-coded > maps of travel time door-to-door. You may have > seen similar on (eg) Santander Cycles docking > stations where it gives you a radius of where you > can reach in 5 mins walking / 5 mins cycling etc. > It's a more detailed version of that and also > factors in Active Travel. PTAL only really > half-acknowledges that in terms of assumed walking > time to a Service Access Point (ie a bus stop / > train station etc). Ex- I admire your continued defence of PTALs as a measure of how well connected an area is but your argument is massively undermined by the fact that that is what Southwark (and other councils) use to determine how accessible any area is by public transport. And I quote from Southwark's Dulwich Area Traffic Management Study April 2018: PTAL is a measure of accessibility used by TfL based on distance and frequency of public transport. The areas with a high level of public transport accessibility usually score 5, 6a or 6b on the PTAL scale, whilst areas with very low levels of public transport accessibility will score 0, 1a or 1b. The Dulwich area has a low level of public transport accessibility. Areas around the main stations only reach a PTAL 3 and The Village a PTAL 2 whilst the main commercial area around East Dulwich has a PTAL 3. Other parts of Dulwich, particularly those where schools are located have a level 2 of accessibility translating into a higher use of car and coach for pupils outside of Dulwich.

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh - so you're ignoring the 'central' counts - eg > the ones closest to your house? > > Ok... > > heartblock Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Nope it's Sept data - EDG East > > Jan 2019 - 8140 > > Sept 2021 - 11007 > > > > Gilkes Crescent - 0 Speaking of which I am still in search for some answers to the questions I posed on this mysterious "central" count, can anyone provide any answers - Cllr McAsh didn't. 1) Where is the Jan 19 data from (for what purposes was it collected and from which point was it collected as it is not the same location as the Sept 21 monitoring point)? 2) Where is the Sept 21 monitoring point? 3) What methodology was used to arrive at the Sept 21 figure? 4) Why does the EDG Central chart say: the Pre-implementation data for Jan 2019 has been adjusted to September 2019 levels to ensure compatibility and what adjustment took place and why? That suggests to me that the September 2019 figures were modelled. 5) Why was the decision taken to add the EDG Central monitoring point in Sept 21? What, or who, prompted that so late in the process? 6) When was the Sep 21 monitoring captured - was it at the beginning of the month before the private schools went back or at the end of the month during the fuel crisis? And on the Waltham Forest increase of car ownership within the LTN I am trying to find it (I believe it was something Cllr Vincent Stops tweeted based on DVLA data for registered cars within the postcodes within the LTNs and that it was linked to the gentrification of the area on the basis of the LTNs).

kissthisguy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The thing about accusations about concern trolling > is that it's impossible to prove. What I'd like to > see (and I think is more materially relevant) is > declarations of vehicle ownership (number of > vehicles, size, type) by those campaigning for > LTNs. There should be declarations from > policymakers too. Waltham Forest's LTN led to a significant increase in car ownership within it's boundaries.....

DKHB - surely the concern trolling can also be applied to those from parts of the pro-LTN cycle lobby who are using this as part of their on-going war on cars who try to suggest that electric vehicles should not be considered as a potential solution to the pollution problem? I think back to the lobbying efforts of Southwark council done by the LCC and supporters around OHS where they made it very clear that electric should not be considered part of the solution.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > heartblock Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Today London is on a high pollution alert - > what > > does this mean? > > Maybe it means on high pollution days in a climate > emergency private car movements should be > prohibited for most people. We should be > maintaining the basic minimum quality for > breathable air for our kids and triageing road > space allocation for those who really, really need > it. > > Retention or removal of one LTN won't solve > London's air quality but heartblock is right to > point to the micro problem on EDG (which existed > before LTNs). There is one microsolution that > would have a big impact on this road: stop the > parents of the private schools located on it from > driving their kids to and from the campus. DKHB - the repeated mistake many on the pro-LTN side make is to focus, almost exclusively, on the problem being the private car - it's not, it's much bigger than that. Would you suggest on days like this to prohibit the use of delivery vehicles, HGVs or PHV as well? Private car ownership and use has been declining (slowly) over the years in London and the increase in traffic is in deliveries and PHVs. As Heartblock rightly points out many people who champion LTNs are often the ones creating demand for delivery services etc that negates any positive impact of the LTNs.

Heartblock - yes today is a stark reminder how we all need to do what we can to address the issues. I was reading Ex-Dulwicher's input and the notion that we need more interventions but I suggest we might need to start looking at different interventions as it is clear that the current approach is not having the desired effect and I am not sure throwing in more of the same will do anything other than make the problems even worse. The numbers from TFLs own report are damning - that two years of intervention has done nothing to change the outlook - they got seduced by the idea that modal shift was happening in 2020 when, in fact, that was a positive, but very short-term, outcome of the pandemic that has completely evaporated when life began to return to normal.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > At least we didn?t have that Philip Normal chap > who has just resigned as a Lambeth councillor. > > https://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2022/01/philip-normal- > resigns-as-lambeth-councillor-after-shocking-socia > l-media-posts-revealed/amp/. The Oval ward has an > LTN, but is now down two out of three councillors > as apparently one of the others is missing in > action. > > New cycle hangar going in on Cornflower Terrace: > > https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetai > ls.aspx?Id=7540 Did no one in the Labour Party do any due diligence on the social feeds of their candidates? Those tweets from Philip Normal are disgraceful- and it?s not just one or two. On the Tory candidates it is interesting, but not surprising, they are running on an anti-LTN agenda. One Dulwich has stated from the beginning that they were not politically motivated and I always wondered why Dulwich Alliance came to fruition and I wonder whether Clive wanted to launch a political career. It?s going to be very interesting to see what happens between now and May.

kissthisguy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @dan-the-man really interesting picture you paint > of the local political dynamics. I'm amazed that > the hard to hardish left has such influence still. > I'd just assumed that it would be on the wane > post-Corbyn. You say selections are happening, so > do you know if Labour are going with James, > Charlie, Victoria, Margy and Richard and just > haven't announced it yet? If Richard is a moderate > how can he squeeze through? I think you're right > about Margy being left leaning - her twitter bio > says she is a Socialist-environmentalist If I remember rightly her twitter bio used to say ex-city trader??

Just received a flyer from the Dulwich Village Labour Action Team (a.k.a Margy and Richard and Helen Hayes) asking for our views on the postal service in the area (one presumes they didn't use Royal Mail to deliver them unless they sent them in November!). Apparently they want to hear if we are having any problems and they will follow up on our behalf..........

Pugwash - the system seems to be creaking back into life now and items that are posted now are getting through (we got two items of post dated this week). It's all the stuff not delivered in December and the beginning of January that is still missing and it sounds like it is sitting in bags in the delivery office in Peckham. Have any of our councillors given an update?

Dan-the-man Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'll comment briefly on the politics, being an > active Labour member (just to note I'm pretty > pro-LTNs). > > Ultimately, one-party state/regimes always run > into trouble. > > A particular problem with Southwark Labour is the > radicalism of local members combined with a > situation where virtually anyone in a red rosette > gets elected with big majorities. > > This leads to a situation whereby ideological > purity is required by anyone seeking to be > selected by local Labour members. > > In the 2018 elections, some very good moderate > councillors were not selected again. Their sole > crime was that they were not momentum activists, > whilst some very underqualified candidates were > selected and won with decent majorities. > > Currently Labour is going through the process to > select candidates for 2022 - I know from inside > knowledge that pretty much anyone on the > 'moderate' wing of the party has not even been > shortlisted. > > This means local parties will again primarily be > choosing from a shortlist of momentum-approved > left wing candidates. > > Even as a Labour member for a long time (and > desperate to remove this conservative government), > I know I'll be voting for alternatives in the > council elections (probably Lib Dems if they put > forward anyone decent) just to try and ensure > there is more balanced representation and to try > and turf out some of the 2018 Labour contingent. Dan and, as we painfully found during the 2019 election, this will ultimately lead to their downfall. Labour has to learn from the mistakes under Corbyn - granted local politics is a different beast to national politics but hard left ideology led to an election disaster. I think Labour are in for a rough ride in some wards in the area (and beyond if you look at the in-fill and Leo Pollack issues - speaking of which I saw this - again not a good look https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/southwark-council-takes-no-further-action-against-former-housing-chief-leo-pollak/) and ultimately Cllr Williams will be held to account at Labour HQ. The LTNs could be the beginning of the Red Wall of Southwark starting to crumble.

And what I can't work out is that every council that is putting these in is claiming tremendous success and reductions in traffic yet Sadiq is saying there has been no reduction in traffic. Granted he is talking across the whole of London but the numbers just aren't adding up. I also think it is very telling that any reference made by the Mayor to modal shift increases is grounded on the 2020 lockdown increase - which was a temporary blip and has not continued in 2021. He also says in his statement: "Most traffic is caused simply by there being too great a demand for limited street space, meaning the only long-term solution can be to significantly reduce car use in favour of greener means of travel." But by their very design LTNs and cycle lanes create more demand for limited street space so he is massively contradicting his own policy - his measures are adding to the problem - just look at Waterloo Bridge. He seems really confused and I am trying to work out what his strategic political point is - I do wonder if he is trying to put a marker down before the inevitable "your LTNs and cycle lanes are a waste of money" narrative once the 2021 modal shift numbers get released and show a massive drop. Also the BBC news item article contained input from a lady who ran a flower shop within the Waltham Forest LTN who was saying how nice it was, due to the LTNs, that people could stand outside her shop without traffic outside and a man who said LTNs were awful as most of the shops had closed because nobody could get to them anymore. It was a wonderful poster child for all the narratives on both sides of the argument.

It does seem RM are prioritising current mail over the December backlog - we got a load of post sent in the last couple of days today and nothing from the pre-Christmas backlog.

Did anyone else see the news last night with Sadiq in the Waltham Forest LTN as he talked about the continued use of cars in London and that the walking, cycling and public transport share has fallen whilst car use has increased? It was on the back of this announcement: https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/cost-of-congestion-in-capital-revealed I couldn't help but watch it and think that it felt like an admission that the current policies being introduced across the capital are just not working - they are just not having the desired impact (and may actually be contributing to many of the issues highlighted by Sadiq). So what do we need, more of the same or a radical rethink of London's approach to travel? Maybe now is the time for the Mayor to admit (and he did do this during the BBD interview) that motorised vehicular travel is not going to go away and that we have to accept that and try to put policies in place to reduce journeys (road pricing) and clean those modes of travel away from fossil fuel towards electric.

Definitely a scam. We got a bundle of mail through the door today - two Christmas cards post marked 5th Dec! Still loads missing but it's a step in the right direction!

kissthisguy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Unbelievable. Authoritarian and lacking in > confidence - it's not the thing you do when you've > won the argument! > > I hope it is challenged. Very Big Brother. Another example of a council forgetting to engage brain before pressing send. It is utterly ludicrous that they thought it appropriate to send this - it sends such a bad signal (but is very reflective of the way many councils have handled themselves during the LTN debacles). Let's hope Southwark isn't so stupid to pull the same trick - people have had enough problems with pro-LTN folks damaging them that they don't need the council wading in too.

It seems they have given up trying to clear the December backlog and are just trying to resume normal service. Charlie Smith promised an update so maybe we will hear something definitive from our councillors on whether we will ever get our December post. Does anyone know what came of the meeting in February of last year between Helen Hayes and our local councillors and Ofcom - did it ever happen? https://www.helenhayes.org.uk/royal_mail_0221 I noted she has written again to Ofcom in December:

DKHB - Dulwich does not have good public transport - it's PTAL scores are some of the lowest in the whole of Southwark so can we just put that to bed once and for all. Even the council admitted as much in their transport report of 2018 (and they stated that LTNs should only be deployed in areas with good PTAL scores so why they thought Dulwich would be a good place for them is anyone's guess). I agree with you that Uber/PHVs and Amazon is driving vehicle use rates in London and I agree that private school traffic is a major issue in the area. But the residents of Dulwich have little control over that and why should we be punished and have to live with more congestion and pollution? Are we expected to "suck up" the pollution as part of the war on pollution. Those journeys don't go away by throwing in a roadblock, they just go a different route and become longer and more polluting. You say that and then contradict yourself by suggesting that the city if choking on the discretionary use of millions of cars when private car ownership and use is declining (albeit slowly). Ironically the much heralded Waltham Forest LTN led to a significant increase in car ownership within the LTN area - mainly due to gentrification I hasten to add but not a good look for the LTN at all. So DKHB - what is the solution - do you think LTNs reduce PHV and deliveries? Do you think LTNs stop parents driving from Streatham to Alleyns? Your previous post highlights why so many of us were against these measures because given the nature of the Dulwich area they were never, ever going to succeed and what you have said just validates that position.

My goodness Lambeth really over stepping the mark on this one....forcing residents to remove the Stop the closures signs. That is a really bad look.

He doesn?t actually. Private e-scooters are only allowed on private land and public hire scooters will be banned from Dulwich Park (enforced by geo-fencing) so there should be no escooters in Dulwich Park - for good reason?..

Sickness has been mooted for a very long time as being one of the reasons - this has been going on for so long now it is just so tiring - it's been over 3 years of problems which become horrendously pronounced around Christmas. The two bits of junk mail we got on Saturday made us think that we would get a deluge of mail today but nothing - not a jot. Our kids get The Week Junior and they have missed 5 issues now.....how long is it going to take them to get the backlog to us all? https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/sort-it-out-royal-mail-to-close-east-dulwich-postal-office/

Legal - second that. LTNs were here for good the moment they went in, my vote will be about how the councillors treated their constituents throughout the process and if it help affects change I hope all councillors learn that you cannot treat your constituents like that and, hopefully, every constituent will benefit in the future.

Let's not forget how quickly the council did a U-turn on the Phase 3 and Phase 4 parts of the programme around Peckham Rye etc. They didn't do that because of a change in policy, they did that in reaction to the weight of public opinion within the areas where they had rolled out the LTNs and the objections from the emergency services etc.

DKHB - the beauty of this is we won't actually know if you are right or we are right until such time as there is a definitive way to measure local sentiment. On one-hand you say the consultation was open to manipulation but if you cast your mind back to the consultation itself (I presume you filled it in) the council went out of their way to try to ensure they were capturing the views of residents who lived within the LTN area, outside the LTN area (but within the wider Dulwich localilty)and those who were outside of the Dulwich area and they went to great length to delete any duplicate entries (from both sides of the argument). The council published the results of the consultation on a street-by-street basis so they must have had a high degree of certainty that the numbers were accurate. In the interest of balance yes people from both sides of the argument were encouraging people to have their say: Southwark Cyclists, LCC and plenty of local pro-LTN activists were using social media to encourage their members and contacts to "have their say" in consultations and I personally feel that there would probably have been more interference with the local process from the pro-LTN community than the anti because the pro-LTN community had a well established lobby programme in place and can rely on fanatics to respond far more than the anti-LTN community. Your anecdotal evidence will probably differ from everyone else's - that's not to say its wrong. For example I was very pleasantly surprised (when we moved to within the area most benefitting from the LTNs) that our neighbours were very much anti- them (not I hasten to add because of inconvenience but because of the injustice and ludicrousness of them). And the number of familiar local faces from our street during the protest at the junction was wonderfully reassuring as well. I had always presumed (wrongly) that those areas closest to the Village that were benefitting the most from them would be in support of them - but that doesn't appear to be the case. To Legal's point I am hearing of lots of people who have been motivated by the council's handling of the LTNs to ensure they vote in May - most of whom never cared about who was representing them at the council level. Due to the council's mishandling of this whole process May becomes the only channel a lot of people feel they have to have their voice heard especially now they know the council is going to make them permanent despite local resident opposition - and that, for our local councillors is the very worst case scenario as the LTN debacle could be their lasting political legacy and actually cost them their seats.

There is the person who, seemingly most days of the week, bombs around Dulwich Park on his electric scooter wearing a motorcycle helmet and backpack. He seems to just go round and round the park doing loads of laps - does he think he is getting exercise doing it? The park was very busy today and you could see he was annoying people as he weaved his way around the people walking.