Jump to content

Rockets

Member
  • Posts

    4,763
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Rockets

  1. I agree. If we are serious about becoming less dependent on car journeys then we have to facilitate other means for people to get around and if that leads to the inconvenience of having coaches parking near schools then so be it - we need a pragmatic approach. Pragmatism over idealism is the order of the day.
  2. I think because they realise that a lot of people drive to drop their children off at school - I suspect they are being pragmatic.
  3. Why do coaches and police cars sit there with the engines running? Is it just to keep warm/cool or is there some other reason?
  4. But you have to admit the first months of this government have been a disaster. I cannot think of another party that has struggled so much in the first months of leadership. Clearly the rhetoric that they had been preparing for 14 years was just that as it doesn't feel like they spent 14 weeks preparing. I really would struggle if the election was tomorrow and not sure anyone would get my vote. Labour - nothing fills me with confidence that they have what it takes and most of the cabinet are nothing more than glorified local councillors and should be nowhere near a government. Will likely implode. Tories - chasing the Reform vote and lurching further towards the far right will not win them the swing voters. Lib Dems - feels like a wasted vote although they are making some headway after the Coalition disaster. Greens - again wasted vote and even more like local (fringe) councillors Reform - scary populist racists who are a real threat to our country
  5. I notice the signage for the CPZs has gone in now...the cash registers are ringing for the council! The extra long double yellows are following shortly too - just to help create parking pressure so they can have another go at getting an area-wide CPZ.
  6. Ha ha, I love it when anytime anyone disagrees with Labour their supporters accuse them of being rabid right-wing borderline fascists.....normally it's to mask the fact they know Labour are an absolute disaster right now and they're a bit embarrassed as this is not what anyone expected. I am a left leaning centrist and really struggling to find any redeeming features of this government. The dream they promised is fast becoming a living nightmare and I sense they're losing a lot of the people who won them the election. A bit like Brexit a lot of people are getting voters' remorse....
  7. Ha ha Earl.... I certainly think given their own guidance, Dulwich Village was a very strange location for Southwark to put an LTN.
  8. Ha ha, speak for yourself Sephiroth - I can assure you I do not hang out in any right-wing cesspit (unless of course you're part of the bunch who think the BBC is is a right-wing forum!). It is a political disaster - you just can't keep scoring these own goals without it doing long-term harm to your reputation and if Labour fail to get on top of this it is going to be an incredibly rough ride for them and I worry they will play into Reform's hands - and that is something no-one wants to contemplate. For the benefit of everyone they have to do better - and quickly.
  9. Let's cut to the chase Earl, Dulwich Village, given the council's own guidance, seems a very strange location for an LTN don't you think? It seems it was doomed to fail from the outset as the characteristics were not conducive to success.
  10. Which parts of the south of the borough have high PTAL scores? Does Dulwich Village have high PTAL scores? But you realise that LTNs are less likely to succeed in areas that do not have high PTAL scores don't you - it was actually that fact that the council was referring to back in 2018 when they stated the north of the borough was part of the borough to implement them? Why? Because in areas with low PTAL scores there are limited alternatives to car use - something Southwark pointed out in their 2018 Dulwich transport survey that stated....car ownership was high due to, a number of factors, including low PTAL scores.... And if there are limited options what happens when LTNs go in...they displace rather than remove traffic....
  11. TFL's definition of PTAL which can be found here: https://content.tfl.gov.uk/connectivity-assessment-guide.pdf 2.2 What is PTAL? PTAL is a measure of connectivity by public transport, which has been used in various planning processes in London for many years. For any selected place, PTAL suggests how well the place is connected to public transport services. It does not cover trips by car. PTAL values are simple. They range from zero to six, where the highest value represents the best connectivity. For historical reasons, the Setting PTAL value of one is split into two categories (1a and 1b) and the PTAL value of six is split into two categories (6a and 6b). All together there are nine possible values of PTAL: 0, 1a, 1b, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6a and 6b. We often present PTAL values in maps, where a preset set of colours represent the different values. This is described later, in table 2.2. A location will have a higher PTAL if: • It is at a short walking distance to the nearest stations or stops • Waiting times at the nearest stations or stops are short • More services pass at the nearest stations or stops • There are major rail stations nearby • Any combination of all the above.
  12. Now WASPI women are upset...this government is lurching from one disaster to another....I am starting to wonder if they are ever going to be able to recover...it seems it's one own-goal to another.
  13. And here is where Southwark goes against it's own guidance on LTNs (there were others around the 2018 timeframe as well but I cannot find those as Suuthwark has been deleting a lot of stuff) in areas with low PTAL scores (one has to wonder why they thought Dulwich was a good spot and when you look at a lot of their own criteria they have failed to deliver....: 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: ï‚· 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. ï‚· 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. ï‚· 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. ï‚· 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). ï‚· In conjunction with improvements to Public Transport and other work on adjacent main roads to increase cycling and other forms of active travel.
  14. No but they did say that LTNs should only be deployed in areas with high PTAL scores....which is why they cited the north of the borough....because in the south we have low PTAL scores...that's what makes it relevant. I don't think they have an option. You can't encourage people to stop using cars and then complain if there are more school coaches for parents to get their children to school. I know Clean Air Dulwich embarked on a campaign against the school buses but it was massively misguided especially if your stated aim is to reduce pollution from car traffic....seems a little counter productive to then moan about the car replacement..... I am still needing to be convinced that councils are not using PCN and CPZ revenue to make their balance sheets look a lot healthier by using that to fund road management etc and free the money originally earmarked for something else. Wasn't this part of the issue for the council with the CPZ when they failed in their quest to get it area-wide - that they had already "booked" the revenue on their balance sheets for the forthcoming year?
  15. Whatever the cause I very much hope everyone is ok.
  16. I have even seen reports of people trying to rob the Amazon vehicles full of deliveries before they even get to the front door.
  17. Not directly but, say, your budget for road safety or public realm is £10m a year and you manage to raise £10m a year from CPZs and LTNs surely you can then turn the £10m you had earmarked for road safety or public realm something else and if that is the case then are they not using CPZs and LTNs to raise revenue to help fund other spending?
  18. I am kind of sad though and thought we might have our own X-File/Project UFO moment!!! 😉 Dulwich twinned with Roswell!
  19. From the video posted (if that is the same incident) it looks like a collection of balloons you can just make out some round shapes and it is seemingly moving with the wind. Recently the bright moon has been creating some weird/beautiful lighting effects as well on the clouds.
  20. The guidance came years ago during meetings the council held about OHS/LTNs etc - I don't have the details of it to hand but somewhere in the annals of this forum there are the references to it and where it came from - it was in the years pre-Covid and around the failed OHS consultation of DV. But surely that is still revenue-generating because if you are able to fund those items you highlight above from revenue from CPZs and LTNs then it means you don't have to use other budget sources to fund those activities?
  21. 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) where people have a plethora of other travel options. CPZs have nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with revenue generation.
  22. Unfortunately they tend to follow the delivery drivers around so it's easy pickings for them. We had one taken and he had to have been tipped off where the parcel would be as it was in a very odd position but the thief knew exactly where to take it from and then brazenly opened the box put the contents in his rucksack and threw the box on the pavement before riding off on his bike.
  23. Usual deflection. Usual porky pies. Usual Earl. And they bizarrely think they are somehow furthering their cause - laughable. Anyone arguing with these folks can always tell when they land a pertinent point because of the bizarre deflectionary responses from the usual suspects. I refer you to Exhibit 2,653 above! 😉
  24. Only in your world March. For the rest of us who use the Square without wearing cycle-tinted glasses the increased risk is very real. The junction now feels more dangerous to pedestrians than it ever did, it's just the risk now is from cyclists and the new design does not try to reduce the risk posed by cyclists, it actually makes it worse. As Penguin said, when the junction was open to cars there was a clear order to it. It was (awfully) congested which also added to the order. The risk to pedestrians was minimised because of road layout, the traffic lights and the congestion. And before the usual suspects suggest this is some lobbying to reopen the junction it isn't. Since the junction has been redesigned to prioritise cyclists that order has been lost and the biggest risk to pedestrians is now from cyclists. The design of the junction, without any speed mitigation for cyclists, further increases risk to pedestrians. Add into that the fact that many cyclists ignore basic traffic controls and you can see why many feel safe walking through the junction now. The new cycle parking places also encourages cycling on the pedestrian part of the junction. The Highway Code says that pedestrians have priority over cyclists yet the majority of active travel interventions reverse that and prioritise cyclists. Why? Because they are designed and influenced by the cycle lobby who are blinkered by their own self-importance. So, clearly it's not disingenuous nonsense. Far from it, in fact, it's an issue the council is unwilling to address as they pander to the cycle lobby - they have been repeatedly asked to slow bikes down through the junction (but, to be fair, they were asked repeatedly to allow emergency vehicles access and they ignored that too). Anytime anyone calls for better monitoring of cycle vs pedestrian accidents the cycle lobby comes out with their usual "But what about the cars" distraction techniques and I think we all know why they are terrified of proper monitoring. Now was it Chris Boardman whp said there was no need for monitoring as you had more chance of being struck by lightning...now that seems massively disingenuous and wholly self-serving as clearly there's a problem that the cycle lobby refuses to acknowledge.
  25. Bravo FM, bravo!
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...