Spartacus

Thanks Andrewc A 20 Year old study which needs a modern rewrite and it doesn't take into account the environmental damage caused by farming battery components and how many miles an old car actually drives per year compared to a brand new one (older cars tend to be classics and are driven less miles per year) Would be interested in seeing a more up to date version.

Rah Won't the extended ULEZ improve the environment ? I can see the glory grabbing now Southwark saying we done good reducing pollution by blocking streets and the mayor saying the same by reducing older polluting vehicles (despite the environmental cost of building new cars being higher than keeping older cars running) It's going to be Glory Road !

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Isn't the danger of introducing one way streets, > by the simple act of removing oncoming traffic it > will encourage faster driving as they won't need > to slow down for other cars ? > > Every silver lining has a cloud ! > > Absolutely correct on both counts. Can help with > traffic flow but with a corresponding increase in > speeds - and the vast majority of drivers on all > those roads I mentioned already exceed the > notional 20mph limit. And the 2021 Grand Prix will include the streets of East Dulwich ! I do wonder that if the council actually removed all the measures implemented over the past decade plus that were added to restrict traffic, if it would flow better thus reducing pollution as there would be less idling and cars would traverse through quicker It's a bit like the experiment where all the traffic lights were switched off. Are we over engineering to make the situation worse not better and adding layers on to try and fix initial mistakes rather than reversing and starting again?

The man behind the counter will whip his big chopper out and sort you out in no time and you will leave with a huge smile on your face. Carry on Wicks is so full of innuendos that I couldn't resist !

Isn't the danger of introducing one way streets, by the simple act of removing oncoming traffic it will encourage faster driving as they won't need to slow down for other cars ? Every silver lining has a cloud !

All of them I hope !

Mr chicken Your attempt to belittle my comments has shown your ignorance concerning others needs and mobility challenges which doesn't put you in a good light morally.

Mr chicken My point was that walking or cycling isn't practical simply because of things like disability, age, needing to carry babies, needing to go long distances, carry heavy or impractical loads and so on (the list goes on and if I wanted to walk or cycle all the time I would move to Holland 😃) I actually am a confident cyclists but for various reasons I can't at the moment and the lack of public transport is not down to too many cars, we aren't served by tubes and buses take too long (even when the roads are empty they take ages as they need to necessarily stop to pick people up !) I'm all for well thought out and consulted fairly measures which isn't what is happening at the moment.

Exdulwicher I agree with your estimate of income from motoring as the governments own sources are roughly the same source : https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/14407 However I do disagree with some of your statement below >>Again, depending on how you count some of >>the costs and externalities, if you just >>focus on "road building" or include road >> improvement, basic maintenance (eg >>potholes) and if you factor in pollution, >>costs of road accidents, congestion (as a >>cost to the economy), the use of often >>valuable public space for storage of cars >>(be that residential parking or purpose- >>built car parks) and then less measurable >>issues like visual and noise pollution, you >>run at about ?48-50bn annual costs. Total spend on the roads is ?4826 million in the 2018/19 fiscal year source : https://www.statista.com/statistics/298667/united-kingdom-uk-public-sector-expenditure-national-roads/ (approx 5 billion) Car parks are often a source of income for councils (be they council run or managed by a third party) and includes revenue from fines as does revenue from CPZs so they can both be excluded from your estimate of "motoring cost to the public domain as they are often a profitable source of income. Road accidents (being cold and analytical) are covered by emergency services and the NHS which both get funding from National Insurance (NHS) and council tax (Emergency services) and they would be required regardless on a standby basis so you can't really count the cost they incur in either side of the equation (unless for fairness you add in a portion of council tax and NI into the cost raised by motorist) Congestion is a factor but one that can only be estimated as there is not any hard evidence on the actual cost, only estimations and models so it's hard to factor in. Pollution (in any form) is currently only modeled and no hard actual data has ever been produced so again difficult to give a definitive figure for. (Again being cold and analytical ) and as we approach the all electric future most pollution will be removed (agreed there will still be some) Interestingly bike use now provides very low income to the national coffees as the cycle to work scheme source : https://www.bikeradar.com/advice/buyers-guides/cycle-to-work-scheme-everything-you-need-to-know/ removes about 32% off the cost of bike ownership (including bike and equipment purchase ) cyclists can also claim expenses for cycling to work (only pennies per mile) This is the crux of the matter, car ownership does raise revenue which is used to pay for maintenance of the roads that cyclist demand to use for free. Dare the issue of cycling insurance and licences be raised and the cyclists go nuts yet this story on the BBC almost highlights the need source : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-53443639 So as I said in my earlier post, the ability to point at car ownership and ask why they should be able to park freely outside their houses is one, that if you reduce car ownership will have a direct cost on walking and cycling as the infrastructure still needs to be maintained and paid for. It's not a cycling vs car issue, but it is about proportional cost sharing by everyone who uses the public realm Oh and the cost to London of tfl is not covered by fares and advertising (total revenue : 6.1 billion) as they also get 3.4 billion in grants source : https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/how-we-work/how-we-are-funded so again public transport is (according to your logic) a net cost to the tax payer so increasing capacity would also have additional costs associated with it.

mr.chicken Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Serena2012 Wrote: > > > > > Whether it impacts your experience as a driver > > positively or negatively is not the point. The > > issue is that what is masquerading as a green > > initiative is actually causing tailbacks. > Idling > > traffic = double the air pollution caused by > > free-flowing traffic. > > There's no masquerade. Anything to reduce the > amount of traffic will always start by causing > tailbacks until people figure out they can > actually take a different form of transport. > People's behaviour always lags the changes, so if > we have a requirement that we could never cause > short term problems then it would be impossible to > improve anything. Car use always grows to fill the > available capacity, but that works both ways and > it will shrink to fill the available capacity too. > But that takes time and without shrinking the > capacity, it will never happen. If only in this neck of the borough there were different forms of public transport. Reducing car journeys without providing a better public transport service is part of the problem and for a large number of people walking or cycling isn't the correct answer as they aren't practical for them. I keep on seeing people say that drivers expect to park their cars for free on the road but no consideration is taken into how much VAT a new car attracts, How much car tax is paid every year, insurance premium tax and how much duty is charged on fuel. A large percentage of these taxes are given to local councils to pay for road maintenance so effectively car drivers are already paying for parking. If we get rid off all cars then who will pay to maintain the roads ? I'm sure there would be a public outcry if we taxed walking and cycling so be careful what you wish for is my advice.

thebestnameshavegone Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Transport for London's own analysis suggests that > 41% of *all* trips in London are easily cycleable > (less than 5 miles; no heavy load; traveler is > under 64; traveler has no relevant disability). > > If the traffic's bothering you, don't forget you > *are* the traffic. Walk or cycle. I'll strap my false legs on then, didn't realise it was as simple as telling the lame "get up and cycle/walk you are cured of your ailments my child" Sadly a vast majority of the people who rely on cars have them for very valid reasons.

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I know James is new to this and hasn't spent much > time here so may not be aware of the historical > issues, but surely Charlie Smith could have told > him that tfl won't countenance traffi2c lights on > that junction Maybe they are playing the long game waiting for tfl to go bust and then there will be no objections 😱

Interesting So a technique of grabbing negative issues by the council which could in a cynical world, be used to introduce measures without getting positive perspective on the area They need to properly engage and also ask if people don't have problem otherwise two cyclists (for example) could get a street closed as no-one made any positive comments saying there is no issues along the same street Just my musings mind

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 25 years ago London population 6.8 million and is > now 8.8million. > Forecast is London population will increase from > 8.8 to 10.8million residents over the next 25 > years. > If the same ratio drive then driving gets much > much harder. Roads much more congested. Even the > same ratio of people walking, cycling see's many > more people travelling by these methods wanting > and demanding better conditions to walk and cycle. > Public transport becomes ever less pleasant with > over crowding. > > Doing nothing makes everyone cross and would be no > way to try managing this huge population > increase. > Trying to make changes to reduce the proportion of > car driving for journeys will also cause huge > angst, and worry for those who are essential car > drivers. Just wait a few years and between the headline below and the pandemic, population numbers in London will fall solving your too many people problem BBC News - Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53409521

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I made a point of checking Effra's concerns about > East Dulwich Grove traffic backing up for myself. > > 7.50 Dulwich Village junction of EDG - virtually > no traffic or queueing on three arms. The arm > going north from the village had circa 15 cars > just before going green which all passed through > on green. > 8.20 EDG/Townley Road. Just before the lights go > green 5 cars queuing going west and 4 cars + 1 bus > queuing going East. All passed through on green. > Private schools are on summer holidays which will > reduce traffic levels. But carmegeddon East > Dulwich Grove is not. Hardly an official traffic census on all roads in and around the changes James It's a bit like the pro cpz brigade saying on Tuesday last week my road was so full of cars you couldn't get a piece of paper between them we demand a CPZ But on the Anti CPZ brigade say on Thursday there were loads of spaces I don't see your problem Without a recognised before, and after survey over a sustained period (not just a snap shot as used ) then there is no evidence that it is or isn't working Casual observation and hearsay isn't evidence ! The real issue here is lack of proper supporting evidence or consultation by the council and without it people are rightly going to complain. If you want to do something to help then try campaigning to get the council to actually engage and listen to the full population and not just the vocal locals who shout the loudest.

There's been a lot of suggestions on here and elsewhere that if car owners / drivers don't like the changes then they should move. Can you imagine the outcry if drivers told cyclists that if they don't like breathing in the fumes then they should move ? Possibly best neither side goes down that antagonistic route as it won't win either side friends or the argument.

Great idea James_c If people don't like it they should move, despite their background in the area, where they work and what contribution they make to the community What a sensible idea. I'll just flog the place I've spent most of my life in during a house price lull just so that you can cycle in safety Strewth !

Trinnydad Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sorry to say that One Dulwich is an abysmal > failure. Not organised, no plan, no hope. > Southwark and TFL must be relieved they are only > dealing with a bunch of well-mannered, genteel old > fuddy dudders. Is that an opinion or can you show what your evidence is ?

I've just ordered a Darth Vader voice changing mask for trips out to the supermarket. May not be the best protection but when someone complains the self checkout isn't working I will take great delight in saying "Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed"

I always think of "Day of the Triffids" when someone mentions comet watching I guess in terms of watching, if the sky is clear of clouds then Crystal Palace might be a good point

No idea It could well be a few residents who have stumped up a small amount of cash and some of them could have skills in design and so on. Most of the original members were based in the village so I suspect no shortage of skills or money. Or are you concerned that they have funding via the council which would be typically ironic if it was true.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Spartacus Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > bsand Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Down that rabbit hole post COVID and > companies > > > saying you can work from home. A 3/4 bedder > on > > > Crystal Palace Road or this.... > > > > > > > > > https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/prop > > > > > > erty-92775137.html > > > > > > (Approximately 2 Acres) > > > > > > Dulwich or Benfleet > > > > Hmmmm no brainer really Dulwich every time > > 😱 > > People moving to Devon and the Welsh Borders in > just my limited group - so it's more than Dulwich > versus The Suburbs. Sorry , you misinterpreted my comment Moving out yes but Benfleet no

bsand Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Down that rabbit hole post COVID and companies > saying you can work from home. A 3/4 bedder on > Crystal Palace Road or this.... > > https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/prop > erty-92775137.html > > (Approximately 2 Acres) Dulwich or Benfleet Hmmmm no brainer really Dulwich every time 😱

I'm not sure if I can blame the royal mail or the charities involved but during lockdown I've adopted a Tiger, 2 Donkeys and a huddle of Penguins and not one of them has arrived through the post yet. The smell in the sorting office must be driving the staff mad by now !

"Next Southwark is planning to make Peckham Rye east side (the bit by the Rye pub) cycle & bus only" How will this work as the only way to go to Nunhead if you come from the direction of Forest Hill (including if you come along Barry Road) is to go to the turn at the coop building in Peckham, come back on yourself and the go along the east side and turn left towards Nunhead Equally if you are coming from the Copeland Road direction and want to go to East Dulwich Road (or beyond) you can't currently turn left or right at the East Dulwich Road / Peckham Rye junction so you have to go along the east side, turn right at the lights and approach the junction that way. Closing of the east side will cause major issues going anywhere which will see cars being forced to use side roads to get to their destination. Very badly thought through by the council as it is systematically cutting East Dulwich off from its neighbouring areas without thinking of the impacts on other roads or how the disabled and elderly will travel. Let's prey what you you suggest above simply isn't true.