first mate

Nothing then from a Section 106 re the adjacent development? Interesting about the Safer Streets Fund- it will be interesting to see how much safer that junction is, given concerns about cyclists using pedestrian areas. Thanks Dulwich Way for your informed input. Lots of useful detail. I think we now need to know more about how CPZ/ parking surplus is to be spent in Southwark. For reasons already stated, I'd imagine there'll be plenty of it.

What about Dulwich Square, where did the funding for that come from? I should remind you that the finishing touches to that were effected just weeks ago, just in time for the new, but unwanted Dulwich CPZ.

Clearly there is surplus, else how are these other projects funded (Dulwich Square, for example). In that latter case, it is a balance between a space for children to play in and enjoy 'fresher' air ( if that can be proven, which I doubt, so that point is very hypothetical, plus those same children are also bang next to a number of very large and green spaces where they can play) against forcing cars, many on necessary journeys, to take longer routes and massively inconveniencing a number of other residents, a number with limited mobility in a low ptals area, to also take longer journeys. And, all those journeys quite probably increase, if not outweigh, any hypothetical 'improvement' in air quality.

No, but it can generate surplus... surplus can be achieved a number of ways, by raising fees; by expanding the number of CPZs. I may be wrong, but I doubt there is a direct and parallel rise between the size/ number/ addition of new CPZs and costs to run and administrate all of them. After all, hasn't Southwark already invested millions in cameras, wardens and other capital costs well before addition of new CPZ. Even if the intention is to make surplus that can be spent on political projects, falling within the definition of improvements to the public realm, a finance officer can always find a way to disguise intentions, the projected and actual costs. I am still struggling to understand where all the money to fund Dulwich Square came from. With the council in its knees it surely must have been found in surplus, or perhaps from development of the adjacent garage space in the form of CIL. For example, I believe a council in another part of the country has used CIL to fund CPZ.

My point is that the choice of improvements to be made is heavily politicised and is driven more by that agenda than perhaps what may be wanted or needed. Also, with a lack of cash, the council is unable to do much with core services, it cannot innovate or look different, it can barely scrape through to provide the minimum. It seems pretty much the only way it can stand out and look different from the opposition is by choosing how to use surplus.

Earl we have already established surplus can be used for other things. Once CPZ is in place there is little to stop the council hiking charges year on year which could yield greater surplus. Even ex dulwicher admits LTNs and CPZ are linked, as are extending double yellows, to reduce car usage and, allegedly, according to the council, improve air quality. To claim there is no relationship between changes to Dulwich Junction over the last four years and imposition of a new and equally unwanted CPZ in the same area is, to borrow a phrase of yours, "unbelievable".

So cash surplus in the Southwark parking fund is definitely not used in any way to fund development and imposition of LTNs, installation of double yellow lines, street furniture, is not used for improvement of the public realm in terms of street/pavement maintenance, it is not in any way used to fund development, changes or imposition to street infrastructure such as Dulwich Square? Do or have Southwark used the surplus parking fund to in any way fund free events in the borough? Technically, according to government guidelines they can. What degree of transparency is there in terms of where surplus parking fund revenue is placed? I suppose the council can choose to use surplus anywhere in the borough, so hypothetically more in the north of the borough, even though they may have accrued more revenue from the south, where, car ownership and use is greater? If unpopular changes (unpopularity limited by locale) are nonetheless such good revenue providers that they provide surplus that can be used to fund potential vote winners across the borough like freedom passes and free events, while in the process claiming to improve air quality, 'greening' the environment and providing street space for children to gambol and play, then perhaps you can see how it might work.

You seem to have 'misunderstood' what I am saying. I have acknowledged that, in theory at least, budgets for provision of core service are ringfenced. Given lack of funds, this means that all political parties are probably in the same boat in terms of core services they can offer at baseline. In other words, there may be little to differentiate them and that is no good for elections etc.. However, the ways in which they choose to enhance/ extend and then use CPZ revenue to 'improve the public realm' may well be very different and allows them to trumpet those differences and perhaps draw favour - free events ( though not many round here); unwanted but politically advantageous rearrangement of road space, arguing they have taken measures to improve air quality (can be spun into a vote winner; even if little evidence to support), you get the idea. I guess also, even though CPZ revenue is drawn from one locale, it can be spent elsewhere in the borough on improving the public realm, to maximise political advantage. On the other hand, there is not so much evidence of CPZ revenue being used for other types of improvement of the public realm, like street sweeping and cleaning, pavement upkeep and repair, both of which seem a bit in decline, round here at least.

Two observations; where money is concerned, rules, however strict, are readily bent or even broken if possible, more so if the financial pressures are acute. Given those enormous financial pressures, how odd to spend millions reconfiguring and re-landscaping a road junction; against the wishes of the many. Is it that there is so little that the council can do to improve core services that they instead mine what revenues they can play with, to maximise political impact, as in 'oh look how we have improved the public realm for the greater good', we have done x,y and z. Without that CPZ money to play with to 'improve the public realm' as in portfolios of cabinet members James McAsh and Catherine Rose, is there really very much otherwise that might distinguish the various political parties. They are all obliged to provide mandatory services at baseline, so fiddling around with CPZ revenues is arguably what separates them. They could spend more on cleaning streets, repairing paving... so choices are being made on where to spend, it seems. I also understand that technically parking revenue can be used to fund free public events in the borough- we have also been told that this is why the council hire out park land for events, to fund free events in the borough. Is the latter ringfenced, do we know?

Therefore something like the incredibly expensive Dulwich Square, unpopular and uncalled for by many local residents, is funded via CPZ revenue. It might be argued that CPZ revenue is enabling the council to fund highly politicised interventions and an agenda imposed, possibly against the wishes of the majority of local residents. Public realm improvements" is quite a vague term and perhaps deserves close scrutiny. Pavement upkeep and cleaning are surely basic, essential services. It is going off point slightly, but I still feel there is a disgraceful hypocrisy in the so called 'greening' of streets while the council is happy to sell off in annual letting, great chunks of local park, turning a blind eye to light and diesel generator pollution and long-term damage to the land, that is the product of the park event industry. One wonders if instead of investing more CPZ revenue into street cleaning, leaf sweeping, pavement repair, which seems to have dwindled, the council are choosing instead to use monies for more consultations on CPZ and whatever they can do to change the streetscape to increase parking pressure and move again towards their political agenda of a borough-wide CPZ.

So that money is not used to increase bike storage on the street, for parklets and 'greening'? It is not used to build and install various types of street furniture and for major changes to the streetscape, like Dulwich Square? We should also add pavement repair/refurbishment, street cleaning...

I guess they could also add a few much longer ones, so coaches could use them?

The Council have a Cabinet Member for Streets (James McAsh) one of his stated aims is to improve streets by reducing car use- indicating this is a process that is funded somehow? CPZ, extending double yellows, and LTNs, are the three blunt tools that are employed by the council to reduce car ownership. To effectively operate all three you need cameras, camera cars, parking wardens and an administrative section to handle fines. Are you suggesting the council are not involved in the funding of these in any way? The council also aims to put bike storage on every street, which also remove parking- funded how? How are parklets and street furniture for blocking LTNs funded? For that matter, can we be completely sure where the money to fund Dulwich Junction has come from? How are the many CPZ consultations funded, are we absolutely sure existing CPZ income is never used to fund further consultation on CPZ? How do we separate what is strictly a council service from a stated council agenda and mission? This is also perhaps a matter of a little bit of wordplay. I would suggest that while in the strictest sense CPZ money does not fund council services, it is quite likely funding certain council agendas and interventions.

Moving on from my earlier (admittedly facetious) response, if CPZ' genuinely cause the majority of car users to dump their cars en masse, may we assume that councils will then stop charging those genuinely dependent on them? The council does seem to want it both ways. On the one hand they seem to accept that many people (a bit like Malumbu and myself) need to keep a car for occasional trips which are very difficult to do in any other way, but they also claim they want to reduce or even eradicate car ownership. However, so long as they accept that cars are sometimes necessary it is a muddled position. If there is no bulk dumping of cars what do we conclude from that; that more people are really genuinely dependent on cars than we had thought or hoped or that the council is not charging enough car ownership tax (CPZ)? If the latter and the council is genuine in wanting to rid the borough of cars, why does it not put the CPZ up really high, so high that people will abandon cars in their droves? After all, is it not the contention of some of you here that the majority in this part of the borough have no need of a car at all? I also echo Penguin in asking what is the evidence that CPZ' ( plus extended double yellows that are invariably added) significantly reduce pollution - I assume this is what Malumbu means by environmentally friendly journeys? If fewer users than anticipated discontinue using their cars, driving round and round looking for spaces is hardly going to impact pollution from exhaust fumes or tires.

And what about the permit aspect? Is it right that local residents will be charged for parking but coaches ferrying children from out of borough to school, get to park gratis? Coaches which take up the space of many cars and may also emit fumes for some time as they sit with engines idling?

Are these the same diesel school coaches that leave their engines on and idling while waiting to pick up children? Is it right they get to park for free as they bus in children from other parts of London, but local residents have to pay to park?

I imagine it is down to careful phrasing of what you intend to do. So some intentions are explicit and others are kept in mind but not necessarily stated, that way things you might want to do but have yet to raise funds for can be presented as 'new'.

How can CPZ's distinguish between what is a necessary and unnecessary journey?

I think the last point is really valid. The issue with the hills at either end of ED means unless you are fit and able you will have to use an e-bike. Many e-bikes are heavy and that makes it difficult to store them in the home and move them in and out, again strength and fitness is an issue. Outside storage does not feel safe and theft is also an issue. Some may not feel comfortable using hire bikes for various reasons. Lime bikes are quite cumbersome. I would prefer to use my own bike, rather than prop up some distant USA tech company. If we had a flat landscape cycling as a go to means of transport much more feasible. As it is, the additive effects of hills, potholes in roads, bike theft and feeling safe after dark, all work against it.

Earl just needs to 'win', that is clear. A number of us now have had experience of careless cycling in the ED and Dulwich area, but especially around Vanity Square... likely owing to the design which makes it unclear what is and what isn't a cycling area. But Earl states these experiences are "unbelievable" and push the bounds of "probability" because HE has not experienced them. This is clearly a ludicrous position. I think most will draw their own conclusions as to what is motivating him to twist and turn to get himself out of this. It is no good spouting stats about cars, cars no longer drive through Vanity Square. This is purely and simply about the relationship between cyclists and pedestrians ( plus disability vehicles).

Earl said: " I would rather be hit by a bicycle than a car." Good that you finally recognise there is a risk of being hit by a bicycle. Those hire bikes are pretty heavy; I would not like to be hit by one of those at all.

What on earth is a "frighteningly good school"? Back to Vanity Square, quite aside from the design which seems to encourage careless cycling, we still have to consider whether any perceived benefits justify the massive costs. I think that is doubtful.

Earl said: "And again, here is the problem. There is an objective verifiable reality. You just aren't interested in it." Now you are trying to divert and deflect again. I have had recent experiences which you have decided must be untrue because you have not had the same experience. Please do not try to claim that you and only you can ascertain "verifiable objective reality", after all, we only have your word for it that you have never experienced or seen any dangerous or careless cycling in the area. I

Earl said:" So the point I make is one of perspective, proportion and reality. I didn't bring up bias, that was firstmate. But I will answer his quip. Whilst I have no doubt that you have noticed people cycling across the square, it stretches the bounds of probability that you have come close to being hit on multiple occasions. I suggest that your antipathy to 'cyclists' and the creation of the square may be leading you to be hyper vigilant when it comes to misdemeanours involving bicycles and prone to over interpreting inconsiderate behaviour, as regular, and dangerous 'near misses'. " 1. you do not have an exclusive take on reality. My reality may be different to yours, but they are equally valid. 2. At least you now seem to accept I did not ask you a question or request an answer from you. 3. The near misses are genuine, it is just you seem unable to accept things unless they also happen to you. 4.My only antipathy is towards careless cyclists. I am also a cyclist. 5. Explain how you "over interpret" a near miss? As I said, to openly start accusing others of lying just because you really do not want to accept events that do not tally with your perspective comes over as desperate.

At no point in my last few posts have I asked you a question (other than rhetorical)? Show me where I have? Honestly Earl, this is what you do, consistently accuse others of cognitive biases in a feeble attempt to back up your own perspective as the only one that is valid. Then you claim things have been said when they haven't. Read again my earlier posts as I have been pretty clear about my experiences with cyclists recently. But what is truly laughable is the kernel of your whole take on the subject is as quoted from you, below: Earl said: "Not once have I had a cyclist nearly hit me on the pavement or swear at me." So because it has not happened to you... then for others who report it, it is "unbelievable". Then you accuse others of hyperbole but simultaneously claim posters, including me, are: "actively seeking out examples of people on bicycles breaking the rules and then to exaggerate those experiences, claiming constant 'near' misses are occurring". "individuals are being mown down by people on push bikes all over Dulwich" It is hard to take you seriously, Earl. Get those blinkers off and stop misrepresenting and exaggerating for effect.