exdulwicher

Because it's not (solely) about emissions. It's about traffic congestion, pollution (which you can use as a catch-all term for CO2, NOx, particulates...), road danger, use of public space and there are other related factors such as parking, the infrastructure to support car use (like petrol stations, EV charging points, car parks). And all of those things affect *everyone*, whether you own a car or not. And in terms of "emissions" per passenger km, buses are far better than cars. Buses are about the most efficient form of mass transit around in terms of road space, emissions and efficiency. You can (to a certain extent) fix a lot of emissions-related problems by switching to EV. But that doesn't solve traffic congestion or road danger nor does it encourage active travel nor is it particularly equitable - there are plenty of people who can't afford or justify a switch to an EV, potentially a lot of people at the start of 3 or 5 year lease deals on their current car and so on. You can't fix emissions from housing / buildings in the short term, especially on older properties - that's something that will require a huge rollout of Government grants for homeowners / landlords to do things like adding insulation, removing older boilers / woodburners etc. So the current "best" answer is to address the traffic issues. Reduce congestion (by having fewer car journeys, balanced out by promoting / enabling active travel) and you reduce emissions and road danger and you need less space for parking.

On the other hand, there's a lot of expertise out there that would cost councils far more to keep "on hand" as employees. And if you do need something doing relatively short term (say over the course of 12-18 months), it's often far easier to get in consultants because recruiting the relevant expertise on short-term contracts is difficult and expensive. Generally quicker and easier to buy in the relevant needs - on the face of it, an ?85k consultancy (which is the value of the dxw one) is expensive but compared to keeping that level of expert staffing as permanent employees of the council, it's actually very cheap.

Problem is that a lot of councils are effectively paddling around in circles awaiting the (delayed) Transport Decarbonisation Plan from Government. Boris, he of the massive over-promising and under-delivering, has pledged to cut carbon emissions by 78% by 2035 and so far, the policies to actually deliver on this incredibly ambitious target are limited to a few planters, some drivel about electric cars and some limited e-scooter trials. So councils are kind of lost - there's some reasonable new guidelines about building proper infrastructure (not bits of random paint long a pavement and calling it a cycle lane") but many councils, stuck with a perfect storm of traditionalist, car-centric councillors, funding cuts, emergence from Covid and a reluctance to change are scared of putting in place anything that is actually radical. dxw do a lot with Government, councils plus stuff like housing associations. Specialists in digital public services which councils usually can't do in-house.

Confirmation bias. You get it in all sorts of fields where people will give greater weight to "evidence" which backs up their preconceived idea and lesser weight to "evidence" which does not back up their opinion. Fascinating areas of study, confirmation bias.

You see this is where it does get interesting. If you're doing a long journey, the impact of a more roundabout exit from your house (due to LTNs) onto the major road network is less relevant as a % of journey time. If you're doing a short journey, the % increase in time is very significant - that's the whole point of them to make driving less of a default choice due to the extra time while simultaneously creating a safer space for active travel - but it's still based off time rather than distance. The idea being that if your journey now takes 20 mins instead of 10, you'd look to find an alternative method. That's largely true of most modal shift although there's other factors like over-crowding on public transport pushing someone to (eg) cycling/driving the journey instead.

TfL's WebCAT system does something similar that works off time. https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/urban-planning-and-construction/planning-with-webcat/webcat-updates?intcmp=25935 Distance actually isn't that great a measure - people are generally pretty bad at judging distances (which is why so many car journeys are <2km), they go off time. It takes x minutes to go from A to B via Method Y. Time is quite heavily weighted in transport models. A minute spent waiting (eg, for a bus) feels a lot longer than a minute spent travelling (especially if there is no info on when that bus will arrive) so wait time is important as is info. The display board showing the bus is only 2 mins away massively helps with perception. Where this becomes a problem is in modal shift. Let's say you drive 2km and it takes 10 minutes due to traffic. 10 mins in a car is perceived as a large distance - "well it takes 10 mins to drive so it must be miles away". However it also takes about that long (10-15 mins) to walk it and less to cycle it. But saying to someone that they should try that is often rebuffed because it's a 10-min car trip so that would, by definition, take AGES to walk or cycle (and this is ignoring anything about carrying stuff or disabilities or whatever so there's some leeway). To get distance with cars, you can combine various data points. ANPR and/or mobile data will give you an approximate route, the vehicle's registered address is known (although that of course is no guarantee that it started its journey there) but that's still not perfect - there is not blanket coverage of ANPR. On most public transport, distance is irrelevant, it's simply how long you're sitting on the thing for. Such detail is not necessarily particularly useful, you're more broadly after trends: x% of cars driving through [location] are from outside the borough y% of people arriving at [location] do so by bus average time spent travelling by Method X is...

To be fair, it's a bit of a catch 22. Some of it is simply standardised monitoring. You build a road, you count how many vehicles go along it and when. Normal stuff. Gathering data on that before you've built the road isn't possible so there might be a policy that says "we will build a road between X and Y" for whatever reason and you can model some of it based on a number of factors but a lot of it is unknown. With cycling and walking, it doesn't help that the UK lags significantly behind other countries - we know what works, the design principles are all well-established but it's not part of UK transport policy therefore it can't be done. It is improving (slowly) and thankfully the massively car-centric design principles that have been the lynchpin of almost every urban design scheme for the last 40 years are beginning to be overhauled but there's a lot of public and council opinion that also needs to be overhauled. However, the devolved nature of it (where schemes are proposed by councils, bid for from defined pots of money and then selected (or not) by DfT) is very piecemeal, the data gathering (some by councils, some by TfL, some by DfT) is a bit fragmented and of varying quality and there's a lot of politics around it where schemes are proposed and approved because they're popular not necessarily because they're what's best. Those general points are not unique to transport by any means - I often wonder how a lot of the UK functions on a day to day basis and usually conclude that it's in spite of Government, rather than because of it!

It doesn't simplify things at all. The more junctions you have along a road, the more impediments to traffic flow. A very simple analogy, it's like a drip of water trickling along a string - the more knots in the string, the more that drip is going to be held up. There's a recognised paradox to describe it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess%27s_paradox

Most of it is as simple as "build it and they will come". If you build A-roads and flyovers and car parks and put your supermarkets 15 mins out of town, people will drive. If you build proper segregated cycle lanes and proper cycle parking and everything is within easy reach, people will cycle (or walk/scooter etc) There's other stuff that helps - Santander Cycles hire scheme for example has been absolutely critical in increasing % of journeys done by bike in central London but that was alongside schemes such as protected cycleways. Helps if there are additional incentives like showers at work too although that's not always essential for basic commuting. Sometimes you also need some stick (such as making driving and/or parking at your destination more difficult/expensive). What rah3 says above - it's the path of least resistance but it also becomes a circular argument. More people drive so the roads feel less safe for walking/cycling so more people drive (because it's "safer"), which makes the roads more hostile for walking and cycling.... You can probably argue a host of subsidiary factors such as the comfort of sitting in your own air conditioned 3-piece suite on wheels, your choice of music, the status symbol aspect of a nice car and so on but a lot of that is unnecessary detail.

It's very prevalent amongst conspiracy theorists - in many cases it's why they're so easily lead into the conspiracy in the first place. Far easier to watch a few YouTube videos than take time to learn facts from reputable sources, especially when the facts involve maths. You see it a lot in Flat Earth stuff. Much quoting of physics without any understanding of the basics.

There's not really a whole lot that can realistically be done with EDG/LL junction. In effect, it's actually a broadly staggered junction: the meeting of the A2216 (LL) and the A2214 (EDG). The 2214 just does a big kink north before reverting to it's easterly heading as you go off towards Peckham. You can't really widen it or smooth out the turns because of the shops on LL and the houses on EDG. The parking on both roads massively contributes to the issues there - in fact STREETVIEW shows this perfectly with the lorry turning in and then basically getting stuck there unable to proceed westbound along EDG due to parking on its side and oncoming traffic on the other side. You've then got other minor junctions cluttering the place up. The more nodes (junctions) you have closely together, the worse the traffic which is why DV is so bad because that is basically 5 junctions in one and the slightest hiccup anywhere (like one car trying to turn across traffic) brings the whole thing to a halt instantly. At EDG/LL, you've got the pedestrian crossing lights right next to it as well plus the zebra crossing on the roundabouts - so as soon as anyone crosses there, traffic is immediately stopped ON the roundabout which instantly blocks most of it. The easiest fix for that junction is to remove all the on-street parking. You could make the GG roundabout smaller but that would increase traffic speeds through it which is also undesirable, especially given the pedestrian crossings on each exit. A lot of the issues there happen before the junction anyway - one option would be to shift the filters on Melbourne, Derwent, Elsie and Tintagel to the EDG end instead of LL which would force anyone driving to those roads to come in from LL which between ED station and GG roundabout is better suited to handling turning traffic than EDG is.

The problem is though, it's still anecdotal. I don't think anyone is doubting you, I don't think, re-reading rahx3's posts that he/she has called you a liar. But in terms of the data and monitoring that is also mentioned, it is null and void, it is as it's sometimes termed, "anecdata" - information or evidence that is based on personal experience or observation rather than systematic research or analysis. That's not to say it's invalid either though. If it's any consolation, most councils lack the funds and/or expertise to be monitoring traffic / pollution all the time anyway and in many cases you end up with such a mass of data that actually not a lot useful can be gained from it anyway. It's relatively easy to get macro levels of data on stuff like traffic along a road, passengers in and out of a station, pollution within an area etc but breaking it down into (for example) what type of traffic, where is it from, where is it going etc is much more complicated. You don't really need to have counters across every road 24/7, nor do you need to have a pollution monitoring station on every road but data, by it's very nature, is always a year or two behind anyway. And when that year includes probably the greatest upset to movement in living memory, the data is massively off. If it helps at all, this has impacted road and rail and it's basically wrecked all the models (rail slightly less so since trains are a lot easier to plot in terms of where they're from and where they're going!). But yeah, baselines are off (unless you go back to 2018/19) and there's been a lot of interventions across multiple councils, locations etc and the private car stats are impacted by the public transport stats to a far greater degree than normal. Honestly, it'll take another year to untangle it all but obviously by then things will have moved on again. If there's a plus point to it, it might impress on councils the need to have these kind of figures year in year out but who knows.

The problem is that the dog really needs this instruction not to bark from it's owner / leader. Anti-bark devices work but only when accompanied by an instruction that the dog can actually connect to its behaviour and it needs to be done immediately and consistently. Of course they do but there's a difference between the occasional bark if a cat comes into the garden vs constant barking at all hours. The rescue dog that we used to have barked if there was a knock at the door. Otherwise it was (mostly) quiet because it had been trained to know what was appropriate and when. It also wouldn't obey instructions from strangers. I'm not saying it was perfect by any means but it did not annoy the neighbours, nor was it just thrown into the garden to look after itself. Recent case in North Wales where an owner was fined for excessive barking: https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/dog-owner-fined-after-fed-20795749

The register of roadworks says it's relocation of a speed hump.

A few years ago, Athens had a policy to combat air pollution by specifying certain number plates per day (only cars with odd numbered plates allowed one day, only even plated cars the next and so on). A lot of people went out and bought a second car with the opposite plates so they could carry on driving each day...

You could argue it the other way round too - look at what it was and now look at what it is. A sort of inspirational "ooh, we want some of that too". Plenty of similar pics in circulation from all over the world where a traffic-clogged highway has been turned into a public space, bike lanes etc. https://www.archdaily.com/773139/before-and-after-30-photos-that-prove-the-power-of-designing-with-pedestrians-in-mind I view that as more of a counter to the alternative currently being proposed by DA of "let's go back to what it was".

@Rockets - think it's electricity works. However I was just crossing the S.Circ from Dulwich College heading towards the park on a bike last night so I didn't have chance to see any signage that said when it was expected to be done by.

It's likely to be legit - Battersea Dogs Home do door-to-door fundraising, you can see it on their website and download a list of areas they're visiting (also lists the agency they use): https://www.battersea.org.uk/support-us/fundraising/door-door-fundraising They're listed as being in SE22 from 7th - 13th June. If he is who he claims to be, he should have ID from both the agency and from BDH. There's a number on the website you can call to check as well. We had a dog from them many years ago. That said, I never sign up for anything on the door, I wish charities wouldn't do it.

It's got to be an improvement on the current situation of plonking a child into a 2-ton car, clogging up the streets and then mounting the pavement RIGHT OUTSIDE the school gates. https://news.sky.com/story/car-hits-children-and-parents-on-pavement-outside-school-in-wandsworth-12066730 (appreciate that article is from Sept 2020 but there are dozens and dozens of similar stories nationwide)

There are numerous articles from numerous sources which say you're wrong. SUVs weigh more than "average" cars, they emit more pollution, they take up more space (while often having less usable space inside than a comparable estate car), they're more dangerous in general to pedestrians / cyclists etc and the idea that anyone in an urban environment "needs" one for the one day a year when there's a bit of snow on the ground is insane. And if we're going on anecdotes of seeing these things get up hills, I've seen far more in ditches and hedges because the drivers assume that "4WD" = "I can drive in snow and rain and the car will sort out everything for me". Winter tyres make more of a difference than 4WD. https://www.wired.com/story/suvs-are-worse-for-the-climate-than-you-ever-imagined/ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56647128 https://inews.co.uk/news/suv-car-drivers-warning-environmentalists-buy-city-report-945611 The massive rise in the sales of SUVs over the last 10-15 years has completely negated any decrease in emissions from the uptake in EVs / hybrids.

It's an Experimental Traffic Order. The consultation runs in parallel with the scheme. The issue of how the consultation is being done, biases either way, who can answer it and so on is a bit separate to be honest but this is standard process for ETOs. As pointed out by me and others on this thread several times, it is generally better to consult on an actual live scheme that can be relatively easily adapted than it is to consult on an idea, water it down, re-consult, obtain the necessary margin and then build either something that is near ineffective or something that wasn't the outcome of the consultation anyway. The idea that it's invalid because people weren't consulted in advance is totally bogus, it's being used as a sort of "look how undemocratic and uncaring our council is" stick whereas this is just the normal process of every ETO. There's a consultation going on. Again, arguments about HOW it's being done is a slightly different issue but it certainly doesn't have to be done in advance.

Ah, it's the same as my earlier post ^^. They're strongly in favour of active travel as an abstract concept. So long as they don't need to change anything themselves... ;-) In fact this goes back to some of the very early comments on this thread in the first 10-20 pages. Everyone is generally in favour of less traffic, less pollution, more equality and so on. Provided that everything stays just as it is for them.

As with many things, it can probably be argued both ways or with any number of underlying factors although currently very little that the Government does, no matter how incompetent seems to affect their polling much so it's not unreasonable to assert that a significant factor locally is LTNs. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2021/jun/02/the-evidence-is-in-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-are-popular As a general rule, the percentages are normally something like 50% in favour of LTNs, 15-20% against, 25-30% neutral and 10% not sure (+/- a few % each way). Actually doesn't vary that much nationwide. Equally, you could point out that LTNs are generally favourably received as an abstract concept and opposed in the specific application. Although that's less to do with the principle of LTNs and more to do with the implementation... Pick your point of view.

Not at all, it's simply a map to say lots of people in Road X are interested in a hanger, no-one in Road Y has registered any interest. It means that potential installation sites can be targeted rather than simply scattering them randomly around the place. If you want to object to them, that comes at the Planning Permission stage.

The land is safeguarded, that happened a couple of months ago. But there's still no funding in place for it or timeline on delivery, it's very much in the "we'd like to do it" pile at the moment. The consultations on it were all very positive. However on the upside, you can't just leave land safeguarded for ever although equally the safeguarding process does not give any powers for the extension to be built... Not sure how long it would take to build the whole thing if the full funding and planning was in place.