redpost

If they'd lived on these roads a long time then they would notice the 20% increase of the last 20 years? and reflect the need to do something about it?

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > goldilocks Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > If you applied that logic to the nth degree, > then > > you'd lounge any references to Dulwich Village > on > > this thread as its the East Dulwich Forum. > > > > Also - maybe you should be less rude? > > > > > > Metallic Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > northernmonkey Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > What policies do they have that show > they?re > > > > ?centrist? @heartblock? > > > > > > > > The only policies they suggested were > > fighting > > > to > > > > remove LTNs and fixing the postal service > > > > (something that they had no remit over). > > > > > > > > There is nothing to suggest that they are > > ?Tory > > > > light? so let?s not pretend that in voting > > for > > > > them you won?t be voting for Conservative > > > > councillors - they are part of the local > > > > association with all that entails > > > > > > Maybe you should keep out of Dulwich Village > > Ward > > > politics as I don't believe you live in it? > > > Goldilocks - you appear to have missed my question > to you. I will paste it below so you can take a > look and respond...... > > > Here's another pearl I found from my review of the > methodology report which I think is quite > shocking: the post-scheme figures have not been > adjusted to reflect the general Covid reduction in > traffic across Southwark so pre-scheme numbers are > being compared with post-scheme numbers that have > reduced significantly due to the Covid-induced > reduction in driving across the borough: > > See Page 18 of the council's presentation where it > states: > > Post-implementation data has not been adjusted in > relation to COVID-19, although context > on how traffic levels have changed throughout the > pandemic is provided in reporting. > > Any comments on that? yes, traffic was actually up because of covid as people avoided public transport https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/15/road-congestion-levels-in-outer-london-higher-than-before-lockdown it's not rocket science to understand car owners behaviour during a pandemic

The ticket machine is turned off on bus replacements so if you haven't bought a paper ticket you won't need to pay. The downside is the punctuality is awful, they never ever run to the train timetable and I've spent an hour waiting for one to turn up.

You said that "There was a lot made by the cycle lobby that they now have right of way at junctions etc over cars " This is patent nonsense gleaned from the DM, cyclists follow the same rules at junctions at everyone else and have NO priority over cars

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It is going to be very interesting how the Highway > Code changes impact things. There was a lot made > by the cycle lobby that they now have right of way > at junctions etc over cars but what many failed to > mention is pedestrians now have right of way over > cyclists in the same situation. Rubbish, there is no priority for cyclists, all the new rules do is reiterate the need to treat cyclists with respect and don't cut them up or cut them off when they are vulnerable in the middle of the road (ie. treat them like a car). You really need to stop relying on the DM for your information. Rule H3: "You should not cut across cyclists going ahead when turning into or out of a junction or changing direction or lane, just as you would not turn across the path of another motor vehicle. This applies whether cyclists are using a cycle lane, a cycle track, or riding ahead on the road and you should give way to them. Do not turn at a junction if to do so would cause the cyclist going straight ahead to stop or swerve, just as you would do with a motor vehicle. You should stop and wait for a safe gap in the flow of cyclists if necessary. This includes when cyclists are: approaching, passing or moving off from a junction moving past or waiting alongside stationary or slow-moving traffic travelling around a roundabout? As for pedestrians, the old rules said that a pedestrian should be free to cross as long as they have started to cross (ignored by some drivers who beep or ram you when crossing the road). The new rules say that *waiting* pedestrians should be allowed to cross the road freely by stopping, zero chance of this happening with 99% of london drivers.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Whatever the rights and wrongs of LTNs and any > justifications for the greater good and so on, > Mayor Kahn?s proposals raise very serious > questions about the further erosions of our > freedoms that we?ve seen chipped away under the > pandemic. > > I realise mass surveillance already exists in this > country and anyone who has banking apps for > example and allows access to location is giving up > huge quantities of information, including how fast > your walking speed is I understand. > > Khan?s pay per mile means people will be monitored > going about their daily lives. This already > happens in China. Are people ready to accept it > here? There already is a network of ANPR cameras that will be recording your cars position several times a day. Khan is proposing pay per day not pay per mile.

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The REAL problem, ie. one that makes much, much > more of an impact, is people buying stuff that > they don't need, wasting food, using cars or taxis > when really their own two feet could do a much > cleaner job of it, having lots of kids, etc. etc. > but it is MUCH easier and satisfying to ask a few > dozen (at the very most) wood burners in and > around a section of SE22 to not light a (pretty > likely kiln-dried wood fuelled) fire in their > already EU-compliant burners for an hour or three. > So, if you are THAT keen on not having pollution, > think very, very seriously about pledging to not > waste, not drive as much, not have your three > planned children and make do with two or one, > because those choices will pay off much, much, > much better dividends. AND NO FRANCO MANCA PIZZA > FOR YOU, FOREVER! I've got one child, don't drive, so please stop burning logs ... they emit massive amounts of pollution and it provokes my asthma something rotten

cidolphus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > From a physics case this is correct but the drop > off is marginal and does not impact the warmth of > the house because air source heat pumps work best > in insulated houses. (Heat pumps are used in the > Nordic countries which are significantly colder > than the UK.) > > My advice would be...until you have completed the > following list of energy improvements....its not > going to work that well in a victorian/edwardian > house which just leaks heat. (No cavity wall > insulation.) > > 1. Decent double glazed sash windows > 2. Wall insulation - either inside or on the > outside of the house...depending on if your house > is brick or render. Insulation only needs to be on > the external walls. > 3. Under floor insulation plus and perhaps under > floor heating - most houses are floorboards over > dirt foundations not exactly robust from a heating > perspective. (We have underfloor heating on the > ground floor and radiators on the first and second > floors.) > > > The bit about heat pumps "working best" in well > insulated houses is nonsense because ANY heat > source "works best" in a well insulated building > simply because there is less heat lost to the > outside. > > The steps to minimising heating costs are:- > (A) double glaze (or triple glaze all windows as > they do in Scandinavia) > (B) insulate every external wall and ( > © draft proof external doors. Do all that > properly and you will save a massive amount. > > Heat pumps are over-hyped - similar to the hype > that a "smart" will meter will save you money. A > smart meter doesnt save you any money whatsoever. I believe the problem is the classic UK problem, which is poor design and build standards in this country.

Cozza01 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes. We have an air source heat pump and have had > one for the last 4 years. It has never gone wrong > and if you wish to see one in action please PM me > and I can arrange. > > The comment that they inefficient and their > efficiency drops off significantly as the outside > temperature falls whether is air source or ground > source. Is not incorrect but incredibly > misleading! > > From a physics case this is correct but the drop > off is marginal and does not impact the warmth of > the house because air source heat pumps work best > in insulated houses. (Heat pumps are used in the > Nordic countries which are significantly colder > than the UK.) > > My advice would be...until you have completed the > following list of energy improvements....its not > going to work that well in a victorian/edwardian > house which just leaks heat. (No cavity wall > insulation.) > > 1. Decent double glazed sash windows > 2. Wall insulation - either inside or on the > outside of the house...depending on if your house > is brick or render. Insulation only needs to be > on the external walls. > 3. Under floor insulation plus and perhaps under > floor heating - most houses are floorboards over > dirt foundations not exactly robust from a heating > perspective. (We have underfloor heating on the > ground floor and radiators on the first and second > floors.) > > As to are they noisy, not particularly. There are > planning rules on where they can be situated in > relation to neighbouring properties but the > installer will be able to confirm all of that. > > Most people wonder about the difference in bills. > Our house is around 3000 square feet and > semi-detached and our energy bills are under ?80 a > month. (For complete disclosure we do have solar > panels too.) Well said, ground source will have very minimal drop off as temperatures drop, because pipes are buried and ground is near constant temperature all year round. Air source efficiency does drop off as air temp drops as pump has to work harder, also the external coils get iced up and it has to go through a defrost cycle. However, this is minimal in london and most times of the year it will be working with an efficiency of around 3 COP ... which means 1kw of electricity gives 3kw of heat. But, they are no magic bullet, your house needs to be well insulated as well .. and not just the low hanging fruit like draft excluders and loft insulation.

My friend has had an air source heat pump in his flat for 20 years now and it has never gone wrong, he has no gas so it works out quite a lot cheaper than electric heating. It struggles on the few very cold nights we get in London, but most of the time copes well. If you space for a ground source heat pump, then this should be even better. I did a lot of work myself on our victorian house, we installed triple glazed windows, a heat recovery system (recycles heat from air) and insulated as best we could (thin 20mm PIR insulation on internal walls to avoid losing space, heavy insulation between floors and in loft where space was not an issue). Our house is very pleasantly warm with minimal heating, very well ventilated and the upper floors are still warm in the late afternoon when the heating has been off since 8am.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It is, in fact, incredibly stupid to post that on > twitter but as we have seen time and time again > from many councillors all they care about is their > own echo-chamber and seem to lose all sense of > reality when it comes to talking to like-minded > individuals. > > He thinks it's funny, and I am sure his comrades > would be all rolling about laughing at the message > on his jumper but he wouldn't be happy if a Tory > councillor was wearing a jumper that was saying > "F*** teachers" so why is is it acceptable for him > to target any group no matter how despicable you > think that group might be? But given some of the > people he looks up to refer to their opposition as > s**m you can see how this happens. > > There's an air of aggression in politics nowadays > and people in public office should be engaging > brain before posting - Cllr McAsh has made a > serious error of judgement here and I am not sure > his school would be overly happy if their pupils > were following him on twitter to see one of their > teachers posting that. I understand personal views > etc on twitter but you are still representing both > the council and the school in your bio - show some > class and don't drag your profession and council > office into the gutter. > > The fact Cllr Williams has liked it speaks volumes > - perhaps he will claim he didn't see the > profanity on the jumper, nor the finger sign on it > too! > > I can see the funny side, I just don't think > someone in Cllr McAsh's position should be posting > it onto a public twitter channel when he has no > idea who will see it. > > And the fact Malumbu thinks anyone who has an > issue with this is suffering a sense of humour > failure just shows how some people will try to > forgive anything within their own echo-chamber and > highlights the point I was making earlier. > > As the Manics so wonderfully said: If you tolerate > this your children will be next > > My worry remains that is the council are treating > their constituents with such contempt over LTNs > what else are they doing and what else will they > do in future? Complain to the local government ombudsman then and stop whinging

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I say "beleive" you say "understanding" - you see > nobody knows and by releasing the reports without > the back-up detail the council has just allowed us > all to come to our own conclusions as they have > not provided the transparency to back up their > report. > > I did read somewhere that the Jan 19 site is in a > different location to the Sep21 location, perhaps > Cllr McAsh could confirm. > > It would also be good to get some clarity on how > the Jan 19 and Sep19 figures were arrived at - > what is modelling, what is actual data from > comparable locations as by adding that additional > site in Sept21 there may be an element of > double-dipping going on in the conclusions. Why don't you do something positive and submit an FOI request instead of endlessly complaining on this forum?

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They are conservative because they don't know what > condition your circuit is in i.e. old cable with > poor insulation, water ingress, corroded > connections, how much is alu/copper wire etc ... > lots of variables > > There is very little aluminium in the whole local > network (it was an experiment that didn't really > work), I'm not sure there's any locally to ED. The > enhanced copper of G Fast only works over very > short runs from the cabinet. If offering ADSL > they'd (Openreach) normally wipe up any corroded > connections. For the FTTC service it is only > copper from the last flexibility point (normally a > local cabinet). The remainder (back haul to the > exchange) will be fibre where 'condition' won't be > an issue. I beg to disagree, anecdata from 4y ago: I have a pole connection that would drop out occasionally and have very varied performance. After persistently complaining to my provider Zen, openreach came around and replaced an old alu line with copper, the engineer said the connections on the pole were also badly corroded and he replaced those at the same time. They stopped using alu in the 80s/90s, doesn't mean it's not still around and some of it works fine!

ianr Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ed_pete, I've been doing some more experiments > after seeing your most recent post, which I'd not > read when posting mine. I've tried this time using > your bt.com link, and getting estimates for > > (1) Arnhem Way (a) based on postcode only, and (b) > for a specific address > (2) My own road, ditto > > In each case the (a) estimates were obviously > based on ADSL whereas the (b) ones were for FTTC. > > So basically I'd suggest that at least some (in > default I suspect maybe all) of your ADSL reports > are artifacts: they're simply revealing that the > BT estimate offer is a conservative one, not > willing to give a specific FTTC commitment until > it's tied to a specific address that's then looked > up in one of their database tables. It is, after > all, a sales portal, and giving a false > overestimate might be embarrassing. > > I'm interested to know if you agree. Have you, > for example, tried entering your own exact > address? If you are doing any more tests > yourself, be aware that the BT software adds a > declared location to its cookies. I deleted all > bt.com cookies between each of my own tests. > > For anyone interested, there's a nice little > diagram at https://kitz.co.uk/adsl/fttc.htm > showing how the FTTC signal gets to us — > mainly through fibre to a neighbourhood FTTC > cabinet, then via a link to a local ADSL cabinet, > and only then via the ADSL metal wires for the > last shortish step. The estimate is conservative and I believe is based on distance from the cabinet (FTTC)/exchange (ADSL) They are conservative because they don't know what condition your circuit is in i.e. old cable with poor insulation, water ingress, corroded connections, how much is alu/copper wire etc ... lots of variables When you do get ADSL or whatever installed, it will take a few weeks to work out the quality of your line and automatically set the linespeed to whatever your circuit can reliably take

In the spring we were asked a couple of times for a covid pass, in all cases they just gave a cursory look that you have one ... not that it's actually yours and the barcode scans and is valid

Congrats on taking the clickbait Evening Standard Journalist admits anti-cycle lane angle on London being named world's most congested city would ?get more readers? whereas economic rebound was single biggest factor. https://road.cc/content/news/journalist-anti-cycle-lane-angle-gets-more-readers-288449

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Haven?t read it yet but at least looks like an > incremental approach of building an in house > skills base and focusing first on reducing > consultancy, maintenance etc rather than setting > up a full bells and whistles company to compete > with the private sector. Deserves its own thread, > but link here > https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s1033 > 74/Report%20Southwark%20Construction%20Company%20r > eport.pdf What could possibly go wrong? https://www.lgcplus.com/finance/brick-by-brick-failures-account-for-over-half-of-croydons-overspend-s114-notice-reveals-12-11-2020/

geh Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > or is it 100% diverted from landfill? Perhaps > it's that, but I think one leaves the centre > thinking the situation may be better than in fact > it really is? The residual waste is recycled into electricity ie. burnt at deptford incinerator Not everything can be recycled, even the swedes can't recycle everything. I believe it's highly disingenuous to claim that 100% recycling

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Penguin68 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > TfL services may be cut due to funding gap, > mayor > > warns > > > > Apparently the ULEZ expansion has not led to > the > > money bonanza hoped for - as too many Londoners > > have chosen to get ULEZ compliant vehicles or > not > > come in - which means that the expansion, for > > which the Mayor prayed-in-aid reduction of > > pollution and improvement of air quality was > > actually (anything sound familiar here?) about > > revenue raising. The Mayor was hoping for a > > continued influx of polluting vehicles, which > he > > could charge, not for what has happened. > > > > How unlike the home life of our own dear Council > - > > or not? > > Any evidence for this (e.g. tfl minutes) or are > you just making it up? > > > This story from the Evening Standard > https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/ulez-expans > ion-compliance-less-money-fines-tfl-b966901.html That's a non story, just speculation and no mention of covid which has been devastating to tfl fare box

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Nope that was Boris - he also fooled a load of > Northern MPs as well. Yes it is quite ludicrous to > imagine closing roads reduces traffic, when in > fact it just funnels traffic onto other > residential roads and makes journey times longer, > increasing idling and polluting traffic. > What is also ludicrous is that Southwark were > taken on this 'evaporating' ride of fantasy. I'll > be promised herds of unicorns by my Council > representatives I leafleted and campaigned for > back when I thought the Labour Party represented > me and other ED residents - more fool me. So by your logic building new roads doesn't induce demand?

What, no mention of the ambassadors reception?

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TfL services may be cut due to funding gap, mayor > warns > > Apparently the ULEZ expansion has not led to the > money bonanza hoped for - as too many Londoners > have chosen to get ULEZ compliant vehicles or not > come in - which means that the expansion, for > which the Mayor prayed-in-aid reduction of > pollution and improvement of air quality was > actually (anything sound familiar here?) about > revenue raising. The Mayor was hoping for a > continued influx of polluting vehicles, which he > could charge, not for what has happened. > > How unlike the home life of our own dear Council - > or not? Any evidence for this (e.g. tfl minutes) or are you just making it up? Bearing in mind SK was elected on a manifesto of reducing pollution, I'm sure he's happy with the result of less pollution.

I see no problem at all with this development, these homes are desperately needed and let's face it they are nicely located next to bus routes on LL and south circular with easy access to Dulwich Park and sydenham woods.

ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How about a six storey block on Court Lane > instead? Or several? > > redpost Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > ab29 Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > But of course - squeeze in more people in > > already > > > busy area, take away whatever little green > > space > > > people have and add more noise (more people, > > more > > > cars etc) - just because you can! > > > > > > How about a six storey block on Court Lane > > > instead? Or several? > > > > Yes, let's just keep people in temporary > > accomodation instead A developer would need 2+ neighbouring plots to put up a block of flats, unlikely to happen so court lane plots stay as houses Why the fixation on court lane? Where else is the council supposed to get the land from?

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ?I?m a cynical old queen who has bitter takes on > everything but can?t at any point lift my cynical > glasses and look at hard cold reality? > > Jesus wept > > Prices in pubs are going up because of massive > inflationary reasons. 3 p off duty doesn?t even > begin to compare > > Serious question. Do you honestly expect pubs to > lower prices by 3p a pint. > > Let?s imagine YOU ran a pub over last 2 years. > How do you think you would balance your income and > outgoings? Yes, there are inflationary pressures but also an element of price gouging going on Go up north to a city centre pub .... similar rent and wages, yet 25-30% cheaper for a pint