Earl Aelfheah

Rye is lovely, but as you say, quite small. Hastings old town is very nice and St Leonards (though rough around the edges) is quite 'cool'/ arty. The whole area of East Sussex around '1066 country' is very nice imo.

Brexit is a death by a thousand cuts. We're currently on a path of slow, prolonged decline.

That's very sad. Love Hisars.

Seems like a strange priority to me. Will criminalise lots more people.

Re. Farmers - I just said that I hoped they wouldn't lose business to Poundland. You may be right about the latter competing more with the other chains.

If they that great they will have no problems This is quite a naïve / idealistic view of contemporary capitalism imo. Chains can afford to drop prices short term, put independents under, and then raise them again, or use loss leaders or BOGOFF offers to entice shoppers. All of these tactics may lead to success, without necessarily translating into better overall value or service. Big marketing budgets (and subsequent brand recognition) often means people will favour places like Poundland regardless of how 'good' they actually are.

Farmers is great. Really hope Poundland doesn't drive it out.

Which charity? I really miss Pearspring 😢 The Nunhead Gardener has a great shop within the new Elephant complex. I think it's larger than the Camberwell one. Ah, that's a shame. A lot of charity shops already. I also miss Pearspring. Sorry it closed.

Yes, fairly sure I remember that commitment too.

I don't really get it. There are bigger, better Poundland stores nearby (quite a few). Better than a massive Foxton's, but that's damning by faint praise. Also, they have a history of very shonky sourcing policies, involving child labour. Better bargains to be had on fruit and veg in Peckham, and more variety in Khan's Bargain. Ultimately, it's just another chain store, and not even one of the better ones.

Maybe we'll get our very own banksy in protest at some of their practices (ironically, the original one was sold for a lot of money) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_Labour_(mural)

I hope they've cleaned up their act when it comes to their suppliers https://metro.co.uk/2010/07/20/children-paid-7p-an-hour-to-make-poundland-gifts-453656/?ito=article.desktop.share.top.link

This is exactly what has happened. Independent consultants have been commissioned to do the monitoring, modelling and reporting. Researchers have studied the results across a number of schemes. The problem is that as long as the council commission the work, people determined to ignore any evidence that doesn't confirm to their prejudices, will dismiss it. So who is going to pay to assess the success of such schemes if not the council?

Would be really sad if the Picturehouse were to close. Hopefully not.

I agree. For example, you (a scientist) accept air monitoring data in this case, but you reject data which demonstrates a drop in particulate concentrations when it suggests the positive impacts of an LTN on pollution.

Irony is not dead eh Rockets.

...if you dismiss vehicle counts taken before, during and after implementation. And dismiss particulate monitoring. And ignore modelling. It is very difficult to see what evidence you would possibly accept. All that is left is your conviction that LTNs don't work. I accept that from some people, but you have repeatedly played up your academic / scientific credentials.

So where is the academic research that suggests LTNs are increasing pollution on boundary roads, or leading to increases in traffic, or reductions in active travel? There is a fairly significant (and growing) body of evidence pointing to the benefits of LTNs, but no academic papers that I have seen that have reached the opposite conclusion. Whilst you might reasonably critique any particular, individual piece of research, are you going to ignore the evolving and quite clear picture across a whole body of analysis? The paper I linked to actually took particulate counts as well as vehicle counts. Are you dismissing that data as 'faulty'? And yet you've posted links to unsourced pamphlets on this thread and presented it as 'evidence' whilst talking about academic rigour. Your confirmation bias is so clear for anyone to see.

We could do with more pizza places and coffee shops on the Lane. Almost impossible to find a flat white or a sourdough pizza round here.

What flawed statistics? You mean specific local vehicle counts, or the body of academic research on LTNs in general (all of which points to reductions in traffic and pollution where LTNs have been introduced...for example: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361920922003625)

It is very clear that burning wood in a built up area is not good for air quality, which in turn is not good for health. It is an unnecessary and antisocial activity in most cases. With regards assessing research - Quibbling over details or particular stats (whilst not irrelevant) can often be a case of not seeing the wood for the trees (pun intended). Picking holes in every stat, every bit of research (sometimes with good cause, sometimes not), whilst refusing to look at the clear picture which has emerged in aggregate, betrays a confirmation bias imo. The important thing is not any single piece of research per se, but an assessment of the direction of the total body of evidence.

Couldn't agree more. Seems crazy

I think most people would agree with the aim of reducing car use, pollution and congestion, and increasing the number of people who walk and cycle short journeys (clearly not everyone on this thread, but hopefully most). All the data gathered suggests that broadly, the Dulwich LTN has achieved these aims. It's not a panacea, and I'm only talking in aggregate (clearly there are some areas which have seen bigger reductions than others). But overall, it is very difficult to argue that it has not reduced the number of car journeys, and increased the number of people walking and cycling. I find it very difficult to understand people who would reverse those gains. Debate further localised improvements for sure - but those who just want more cars everywhere... I don't get it.

I was asked for a link so I provided one (Yes, it looks at several countries across Europe, including the UK). If you're not happy with that one and would like another, you could use Google Scholar, I'm not a librarian. There is general consensus that the externalised costs of motoring exceed the revenue paid in taxes. It is also the case that driving in a city like London has significantly higher externalised costs than the average, so in truth the subsidy here is far greater (hence schemes such as congestion charging and ULEZ). There are more than three million licensed vehicles in London, and the average car is parked for at least 95 per cent of the time. TfL data shows that 43 per cent of all cars are parked on-street (at the kerbside). A simple calculation taking into account the size of a standard parking space shows that parked vehicles alone take up well over 14 km2 (1,400 hectares) of space on our roads and streets – or the size of 10 Hyde Parks.

Google "externalised costs of motoring UK" and you'll find several studies that all reach similiar conclusions. But here is an example: https://www.greens-efa.eu/en/article/document/the-true-costs-of-automobility "A report by the Dresden Technical University in Germany calculated that externalised costs amounted to £303bn per year across the 27 EU member states – According to the authors of the report: “It must be stated that car traffic in the EU is highly subsidised by other people and other regions and will be by future generations: residents along an arterial road, taxpayers, elderly people who do not own cars, neighbouring countries, and children, grandchildren and all future generations subsidise today’s traffic.” The study said UK drivers accounted for £48bn of costs, or about £815 per person per year. This figure did not include costs from resulting from congestion or ill health caused by sedentary lifestyles. Motoring related taxes have never been hypothecated, but even if they were, at the time the report was released there would be a £10bn shortfall between revenue from motoring taxes and the £48bn costs." But frankly, when you just look at how much public space is provided for cars (with only 54 per cent of London households having access to a car), it's fairly clear that cars are hugely subsidised.