exdulwicher

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.

News of TfL's latest Government bailout here: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-agrees-conditions-based-108-billion-funding-deal-with-transport-for-london In amongst it are the following requirements: - deliver ?300 million of savings or new income sources in 2021 to 2022 - identify new or increased sources of revenue for TfL of between ?0.5 billion to ?1 billion each year from 2023 - set aside at least ?100 million to continue the delivery of healthy streets and active travel programmes

He's not a councillor, he's Head of Highways at Southwark Council.

This is one of the dangers of consultations done before any interventions. I know that one of the major complaints is that the LTNs and a few other measures have been put in without consultation (this is a complaint repeated nationally, not unique to Dulwich in any way) although the point of the Experimental Traffic Order is that you run the intervention and the consultation simultaneously. You actually get much more valid data and responses because it's based on what is happening, not what the council have painted on a pretty website and told you they'd like to happen. Which brings me to Rockets (very valid) point. You can consult on something, take it away and tweak it a bit, re-consult, obtain your 50+% rating... and then install something slightly different / what you originally wanted to install anyway. It can easily be hidden behind "costs" or "other factors not available at the time the consultation was done", it could just be incompetence or sometimes it's just that the benefits of the proposed scheme have been overstated or the disbenefits understated - it's why I'm far more in favour of Experimental Traffic Orders and trying things out real world, getting proper data and feedback live and then adjusting as necessary because it removes the option for the council to say "it'll all be wonderful, back us to get it done". The major problem here is that people have lost all trust in the council to run consultations so it's reached the point that no matter what the answer is, there'll always be a subset of people who believe it was rigged. And when interventions are being adjusted based on proper data and monitoring, it does allow the negative comments of "they haven't got a clue what they're doing, they're just messing around" etc which you sometimes hear. It does need good engagement to work properly.

So... they work then? Therefore, by that logic, councils should start introducing traffic reduction systems EVERYWHERE? Perhaps by taking one lane away and replacing it with a secure cycle lane, perhaps by putting in a bus lane or implementing a Park & Ride or a toll road or a residents access only road...? What is essentially being said is that LTNs have pushed pollution elsewhere and from comments on here, there appears to be two (rather binary) choices: spread the pollution around a bit or look at the positive outcomes and use them elsewhere to reduce pollution there too. I mean, if there was a ton of rubbish flytipped on EDG, would you argue that it should be split into multiple lots of 50kg and spread around the area a bit or would you argue that we needed better rubbish prevention methods?

You can probably argue it several ways. In some respects it's "multi-modal transport" - car part way, cycle/walk the rest. It might not be the original idea of the LTN, perhaps a sort of unintended consequence but it's still better than driving ALL the way. It's not really any different to driving to North Dulwich, parking on Half Moon Lane and getting the train to London Bridge rather then driving all the way into town. Without seeing where they're coming from, where they're going afterwards (is it simply a "drive child to school, drive home again" or is the parent going on somewhere else - to another school, to a workplace and if so, how? Cycling the remainder of the way, cycling back to their parked vehicle and driving...?) and how widespread a practice it is, it's difficult to come to a definitive conclusion - so far we've got a couple of anecdotes It could be argued that a parent who previously parked in (say) Calton Avenue to drop their child at JAGS or Alleyn's is now parking in (say) Court Lane and cycling through the closed DV junction and up Calton which has pushed the parking problem onto Court Lane rather than Calton / Townley / EDG. If you were especially pro-LTN, you could probably phrase it as a drive through all the dangerous bits until you've got somewhere nice and safe to cycle therefore you need to make the dangerous bits safer - perhaps by extending the LTN. ;-) If you were anti-LTN, you could probably phrase it as a rather disingenuous use of stats showing increases in active travel by virtue of the fact that there is still vehicle usage. Your choice. *edited for spelling