exdulwicher

I don't have any noise stats for it but new York has three main airports: JFK, LaGuardia and Newark Liberty. If ONE of those airports has to change it's arrival / departure direction due to weather, the other two HAVE to change as well simply to deconflict. It's not quite that bad at Heathrow / Gatwick / City. There's a noise & flight tracking map for New York here: https://aircraftnoise.panynj.gov/track-flights/ Schipol is a major international hub with 6 runways and it's only 5 miles from the centre of Amsterdam. That said, only two are usually in use at any one time although they can go up to 4 at very busy times. The Dutch seem very good with noise mitigation measures; the airport has all sorts of intelligent design stuff built in and most people there seem to accept that living in Amsterdam has more benefits than not - they've got considerably cleaner air and less noise in the first place because of the cycle friendly layout which dramatically lowers vehicle use. Problem is that building a third runway doesn't just mean extra flights, it also means tens of thousands of extra vehicle journeys in and around the Heathrow and M25/M4/M3 area. It's really not an easy problem to solve without flattening the entire area and starting from scratch.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48668001 It's going to get noisier....

Download an app called Flightrader24. Allow it to access your location and then just fire it up. It'll show you a near-enough live map of all aircraft movements, you can click/tap on a plane and it'll bring up its flight path, departure & arrival airports, aircraft type, altitude and speed. You'll soon get an idea of flightpaths and you can pick out the 4 stacks that Heathrow have (Bovingdon, Lambourne, Ockham & Biggin), the paths from there into the approach path and so on. Most aircraft coming over East Dulwich inbound for Heathrow are about 4000ft, descending at roughly 600fpm (at that moment, the exact rate fluctuates a bit) and doing about 180 knots (205mph). Slightly different for City which generally takes smaller aircraft.

Lovely pics @PeckhamRose! I saw the flypast from Hyde Park, missed the balloons though.

Yes and no. I can see your point (and it's been made by a couple of people on this thread) about *direct* links but that is unrealistic for everyone. The bus routes are being revised because, in the centre of town, there are simply too many buses, they get in each others way, cause congestion etc so makes sense to take some of them out of the centre of town and force people to change. The Hopper fare should mean that it actually doesn't cost any more for most people most of the time. In terms of *indirect* links into the centre of town though, London is incredibly well served. You can get pretty much anywhere using phased transport (ie bus then tube or bus with a change) and it'll always be capped at ?7(?) per day. I pay more than that for a return train ticket where live now. Coming back to Dulwich is a welcome treat for how good public transport is!

There's a certain failure of understanding there as to how flight paths work. You've got arrivals and departures for Heathrow, Gatwick, City and (to a certain extent) Stansted and Luton to deconflict. Weather patterns dictate a lot of it as do the established flight corridors that act to separate all those flights. Also, how are aircraft supposed to land at Heathrow if they're higher coming over Dulwich?! The whole point they're that height is because they're landing there. If they were higher or lower they'd miss the landing and/or hit something else... Me too. 6pm - as kids we'd run to the window to watch it. Far fewer jumbo jets now, almost everything is a twin engine bar the occasional A380.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-48524152 News item about TfL's consultation on a plan to roll out 20mph across TfL-managed roads in London over the next few years.

Zebedee Tring Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > More importantly, what about elderly and disabled > people who need help from supermarket staff? My mother (in her mid-70's) loves them. Going to the normal checkouts, she often finds items being scanned and passed down the conveyor too fast for her to pack them properly and she gets confused and disorientated by that and feels embarrssed at holding up other people in the queue. Using the scanner, she can pack her shopping logically and carefully, keep an eye on how much she's spending and she just finds it much less stressful. She uses technology more than I do!

spider69 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This morning at Sainsburys was a joke. > > The large self service checkouts have been cut > back to 4. > > 2 only for cash and 2 for cards. That is it. Ask > a Manger and they say its not us. > > It took one person 20 minutes to look at her > shopping decide what bag it should go in, another > person did not have her card and went off to find > money in all 25 minutes, no one using the cash > tills. > > In effect the tills were shut down That's the people, not the facilities; people stand there gormlessly in the queue and it gets to the point they need to pay and they appear surprised that money is required. Cue a shuffle through the 17 pockets of their "organiser" (ha!) handbag, a decision as to whether to pay by credit or debit card or maybe they start counting out the change and then realise as they get to ?17.34 that they're 50p short and they go back to the card. You get similar in airports as people try to find the ONE document that they need - a passport - and it takes a trawl through 14 pockets and 5 minutes of panic.

A friend of mine does it but the other way round - lives in Manchester, does 2 or 3 days a week in London. Travel paid for and it's reasonably flexible with trains too so he's not always rushing around on a stupid early or late train. He's married but no kids or pets! He doesn't mind it - actually gets a fair bit of work done on the train. Most people don't stick it for more than a couple of years though just due to time away from friends, family, potentially hobbies as well and having to turn down invitations to events because you're travelling. The key to it is working out the actual arrangements; you don't want to be in a situation where you're being paid ?30k/yr but then spending ?5k/yr of that on train travel, hotels and eating out. Probably less of an issue if it's ?100k a year in which case ?5k on trains is merely a drop in the ocean... ;-0

BrandNewGuy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > womanofdulwich Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Trees are a good place for criminals to hide > > behind > > Any evidence for that? The Daily Mail. ;-)

DulwichLondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > exdulwicher Wrote: > > > > At no point in any of the previous 3 pages have > I > > specifically said "I am in favour of them". > > exdulwicher, I confused you with the other user > who replied "says me". I apologise! No probs @DulwichLondoner! Also, look what I found: https://movement.uber.com/explore/london/speeds/query?lang=en-GB&dt[tpb]=ALL_DAY&dt[wd;]=1,2,3,4,5,6,7&dt[dr][sd]=2018-01-01&dt[dr][ed]=2018-01-31&ff= That's a speed map of Uber journeys - you can choose a city, choose a date range and the info you want to see (I've selected Average Speed) and then just hover the mouse over a road and it shows you average speeds for certain times of day 9again, selectable). Not really had time for a full play around with it but it's certianly got info around East Dulwich. tells you how much of the journey was free-flow and how much was heavy traffic.

DulwichLondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Remind me, then, WHY are you in favour of the > 20mph limits?? What's your thought process? At no point in any of the previous 3 pages have I specifically said "I am in favour of them". I've highlighted some of the (alleged) positives behind them, linked to some reports - one of which specifically mentions that putting them in is largely pointless since about 80% of drivers routinely ignore/flaunt the limit) and pointed out a couple of times the fact that 20mph zones are rarely put in as a single item. Done well, they should be done in conjunction with other measures like closing off rat-runs, making parking residents only and so on. Same things with ASL (the advanced stop lines for bicycles). Done well, they incorporate advance lights for bicycles (like at the junction of Greendale / East Dulwich Grove / Townley Road). Done badly, it's just a strip of paint that puts bicycles at front of an F1 starting grid of impatient drivers... I'm in favour of transport schemes being done well. A half arsed system does no-one any favours. I can see the positive arguments for 20mph. I can see the limitations (like trying to do it without enforcement where pretty much everyone ignores it). If you look on the thread about a proposed pedestrian crossing at Harvester / South Circ junction, you'll see reports of routine red light running by drivers. That's another example of a traffic scheme done badly. I think we're all in favour of traffic lights but I also think we all get frustrated at badly planned set-ups - those ones with a fleetingly short green light or ones where you sit there for ages while empty lanes get green lights. And therefore you get non-compliance, complaints etc (slight digression to make the point). But at no point did I say "I am in favour of 20mph zones, East Dulwich should have them everywhere". I do like the discussion though, it's raised interesting points on both sides including yours about increased time on the roads. And again, I'm happy to state that I have no idea of the effect - it would be very interesting to conduct some tests though. Cheers

I wasn't making any claim on that at all, my post was solely about journey times. You can find the stat about car usage / journey lengths from the Office of National Statistics. I'm not "cycle lobby". I walk, ride a bike (my own and Santander Cycles), I use trains, Underground and buses and I own and drive a car. I just pick whichever method happens to be most convenient and appropriate for the time and place. I'm just in favour of people getting around efficiently. If it can be done in ways that minimise pollution and danger then so much the better. As per my last paragraph, I would be genuinely interested in seeing some real-world data about the differences in time it actually takes to do an average urban journey around East Dulwich with a max speed of 20 and a max of 30. If there was a relatively convenient way of measuring pollution during that time, that would make the test even more useful.

A few factors: More than half of all car trips are under 5 miles: https://www.licencebureau.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/road-use-statistics.pdf So taking that into account and doing some basic distance / speed / time calculations: 1 mile at 20mph: 3 mins 1 mile at 30mph: 2 mins 2 miles at 20mph: 6 mins 2 miles at 30mph: 4 mins 3 miles at 20mph: 9 mins 3 miles at 30mph: 6 mins 4 miles at 20mph: 12 mins 4 miles at 30mph: 8 mins So over a 4 miles journey driven at a steady 20mph, you'll take 4 minutes longer than doing the exact same journey at a steady 30mph. But that's never the whole story because no journey is ever done like that. Junctions, traffic, road layout etc all mean that you're never cruising at a steady 20 (or 30), it's constantly up and down between zero (at traffic lights for example) and the maximum (assuming for a moment that we're all model drivers that never break the speed limit!) and the actual time spent near the maximum is often very low. I don't have any data for it but I'd hazard a guess that in real-world conditions, the actual time taken on an urban journey is actually very similar no matter what the maximum speed limit is. Be interesting to come up with a few journeys of (say) 3 miles and try driving them. Two vehicles leaving at the same time, one never exceeding 20mph, one never exceeding 30mph. See what the actual difference in time is at the destination.

Speed limits don't apply to cyclists (or horse drawn vehicles) because they're not legally obliged to carry any form of speedometer and (although plenty of cyclists have computers fitted) there's no nationally approved calibration test for them. They can however be done for reckless or dangerous cycling. The fines are usually orders of magnitude higher than for drivers... You don't count the number of people swimming across the river before you decide whether or not to build a bridge over it - it's fairly self evident that building a bridge will lead to more people crossing the river. As a rough general rule, efficient transport systems often look empty. But no-one looks up and down the train tracks and says "i can't see any trains but the road alongside it is gridlocked, we hould rip up the tracks and replace it with extra highway". Cycle lanes often look empty compared to a road becasue cyclists are smaller than cars and because they move far more efficiently, they just flow better. Therefore the system looks quieter. It isn't - it's actually moving more people than the neighbouring vehicle lanes. The stats across Blackfriars and along Embankment bear this out, about 70% of the people movements (note PEOPLE, not VEHICLES) is pedestrian and cyclist at peak times yet the pavements and bike lanes don't look as busy as the carriageway. Just means that vehicles are woefully inefficient and the answer is absolutely not to build more highway, it's to enable people (again PEOPLE, not CARS) travel more efficiently. And in terms of cost benefit - cycle lanes are ? for ? the most efficient and best value thing a city can build: https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/views-and-briefings/cycling-and-economy That's obviously a cycle campaigning organisation but the figures are borne out from various studies in various countries. Denmark, The Netherlands, there's one from Pilsen (Czech Republic) and a couple from cities in America if you search online.

DulwichLondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > KidKruger Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > A 20mph restriction makes roads for drivers and > > pedestrians safer. > > Says who? There were a few discussions about 2 > years ago here, on how there were lots of > different studies with inconclusive results. Sure, > being hit at 20 mph is better than being hit at 30 > mph, but there has been little to no actual > conclusive evidence that 20mph zones mean fewer > accidents. There's a whole host of studies out there although not many yet have significant primary data around traffic volumes, pollution levels because the zones haven't been in place for long enough. There's the other factor that different places in Britain have different transport policies, road design, population density etc and what works in one area might not be as beneficial in another so getting actual nationally applicable data out of it is quite difficult. A lot of the time 20mph zones are put in place alongside other measures (like closing off rat runs, making parking residents only, making some streets one-way) so it's not always possible to tell if any reduction in injuries, deaths, collisions etc was the result of a 20mph limit or some other factor. If you close a road to through traffic then fairly logically there'll be far fewer collisions on it but that's not necessarily anything to do with the 20mph limit that now applies on there! > I also wonder about the impact on > pollution: at rush hour the 20mph limit probably > makes no difference to total journey times, but it > does at night. Is it really better to have an > engine on the road for longer? Pollution isn't just the emissions from the engine. It's noise pollution (slower speeds = less noise) and particulates from tyres, brakes (slower speeds = less wear and tear). again though, that only applies if the vehicle is being driven sensibly. Slowing to a crawl for a speed hump, traffic island or speed camera, flooring it away, repeating is clearly worse for pollution than driving at a steady 20mph but that's a factor of the idiot behind the wheel, not the policy itself.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Starting the engine possible produces more > pollution than an engine idling for a few > minutes. > Stop / start stop / start is not good. Source?

You could put the law in place but it wouldn't make the blindest bit of difference. The coaches outside Alleyn's have been reported loads of times (to the school, the council, the police) for sitting there engines thumping away for hours as they're waiting to pick the kids up after school and Southwark Council's "enforcement team" said there was nothing they could do and (in response to one complaint) actually said it was OK because (and I quote) "the pollution blows away" !!??!! Seriously, when you have an attitude like that in local Government, all the laws in the world won't matter. Personally, if I was in charge of a council and was seeing my annual budget slashed under "austerity measures" year on year, I'd be caning every possible method of fining misdemeanours, especially if it made the borough a more pleasant place. Litter, pollution (like idling engines), anti-social parking. An extra few million ?? there for a council implementing all of that. What's worse is that most modern cars now have start/stop technology - roll to a stop at the lights, kerb or whatever, the engine cuts out (while still running things like air-con, power to your vital phone charger etc) and then starts again when you press the gas to move off. There shouldn't be any excuse to be idling the engine in any modern car.

Bic Basher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Apparently the 20mph speed limit will be > introduced to TfL managed roads in the near > future. This would include the section of LL > between Melford Road and Wood Vale, along with > major trunk roads such as the A23, Old Kent Road, > North/South Circular etc. > > As a bus user, the service has got worse since the > speed reduction. It can take 20 mins to get from > the Horniman end of LL to Dog Kennel Hill off-peak > when traffic is light. Not helped by the > enforcement of gaps in the service where drivers > are instructed to wait at bus stops. TfL's documentation on it: content.tfl.gov.uk/speed-emissions-and-health.pdf Lower speed limits means a shift to more walking and cycling, so fewer car journeys. And therefore the buses can get around more easily. Buses are only held up by crap driving, parked cars in bus lanes, too many cars on the road. Get rid of most of that and you get nice clear bus lanes.

Well technically, in the case of muggings and other violent crime, it's not really the councils remit to do much directly. That's the job of the police and central Government is responsible for the police. That'd be the central Government that have cut policing numbers to the bone... The council come into it with things like social care, youth centres, support for deprived families and so on. But they get most of the money for that from central Government. That'd be the central Government that have cut the welfare budget to the bone... Wait, what? Wasted? Surely not... I was definitely promised a Unicorn from the Sunlit Uplands, bearing a blue passport on it's golden horn. ;-)

seenbeen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > someone should remind the speeding cyclists....I'm > dreading the new 'healthy streets'. It's quite astonishing how there can be complaints about being held up by cyclists (and there always are - the usual rants about how someone was "stuck behind" them while they trundled away at 10mph for miles upon miles) while there are also complaints about speeding cyclists. Which is it - they're either too fast or too slow uless you've encountered Schroedingers Cyclists - simultaneously too fast and too slow. They "come out of nowhere" yet can also be heard shouting from miles away. They dress all in black and can't be seen yet if one jumps a red light, every motorist around seems able to see them instantly. They wear lurid hi-vis (see note above about how they dress all in black). Simultaneously so fast that they're overtaking cars in 20 zones but so slow that they're holding up traffic. It'd just be nice if there was some consistency, that's all. ;-) That's an urban myth put about by people who are rubbish at driving. I was in a 19 reg Mercedes last weekend (sadly not mine!) and it was a VERY powerful car - twin turbos and a 2L petrol engine. It sat there in 20mph and 30mph zones at 20 and 30 respectively with no issues at all - in fact the car did most of it for me. Intelligent road sign recognition linked to the speedo and cruise control, it auto adjusted. Was actually incredibly easy to drive. Frankly there was zero excuse for speeding in it.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But if you don't want CPZ in your own street why > would you want it in another? Given the repeated > cautions about parking displacement it seems more > than likely that if you do not want it in your own > street you will not want it anywhere in your area. > Because people are NIMBYs. Most people agree with things like "we need to do something about the traffic / parking problems" but what they usually mean is "I want everyone else to stop driving (or to drive less or not to park there or whatever...) but I should be allowed to carry on as normal". The poster itself may or may not be sinister but what is unsettling is the figure on there with (apparently) no reference to exactly how it was obtained. See my previous post about the massive dumbing down of statistics whcih in turn allows them to be twisted to fit pretty much whatever agenda you like. And that part is sinister.

Lowlander Wrote: > If the poster didn't contain the "67% of ED > residents rejected..." lie, I probably wouldn't > even have started this thread. > 67% of statistics are bollocks. ;-) It still amazes me how badly statistics are used in day to day life - from journalists dumbing down whatever random story of the day happpens to have a background stat of 84% of people polled.... to adverts for skin cream claiming that "9 out of 10 women noticed a significant difference" and then the disclaimer underneath "poll taken from 104 women in a shopping centre in Gravesend on March 3rd 2014" If you want a good example of how "statistics" can be used, watch the wonderful clip of Yes Prime Minister and how you get the answers you want...

That pretty much never happens though. There are now countless studies from the UK and abroad which shows that every time you improve the area in terms of removing cars, people spend more time and money in that area because it's simply a nicer place to be. https://www.livingstreets.org.uk/policy-and-resources/our-policy/high-streets There's a pdf available on there called The Pedestrian Pound which looks at multiple aspects of pedestrianisation, restricted motor traffic, retail footfall and spend and so on. Interesting read. Happens with cycle lanes too - the usual furore about cycle lanes removing parking and the standard "lycra lout" comments but then once it's in, the shopkeepers all find that actually it's beneficial. On a (sort of related) point, house prices near to Santander Cycles docking stations are higher than those that aren't (in the same way that being near a train station etc means higher prices because of improved convenience). And Lordship Lane is accessible (at various points along it's length from Dulwich Library to Goose Green) by about 6 different buses from Peckham, Herne Hill, Forest Hill, Camberwell and North Dulwich and by a train station at the northern end (East Dulwich). The problem is that people are generally very lazy - they'll always take what they perceive to be the easiest option) and also very resistant to change (they'll always do what they've always done) and what they've always done is a result of the urban environment in whcih they've found themselves. If you live somewhere where it's easy and cheap and convenient to drive a car, you'll do that. Remove the ease and convenience of the car (and this next bit is crucial) replace it with another easy convenient means of transport and you'll drive change. It's actually much easier and cheaper to walk so people walk (or use a bike or a bus or a mobility scooter) and they're helped to do that by quieter, more pleasant streets.