Dogkennelhillbilly

SEN is Southend, not Stansted. Only a handful of slots per day are taken at the moment at SEN. Air traffic doesn't need to fly over central London. There's a dedicated train station with fast trains from London. It's about 7 minutes between getting off the train and walking through security. They have the most up to date security scanners so no liquids ban etc. There's no reason why the government needs to authorise more slots at LCY except to make more money for LCY's Kuwaiti and pension fund owners. Don't forget holding your breath...

In any case there is already tons of capacity at SEN, which is 55 minutes by rail from Liverpool St and has much less congested airspace. LCY is 30 minutes from Liverpool St and 24 mins from Canary Wharf. We're going to expose hundreds of thousands of Londoners to more air and noise pollution so a handful of City flyers can save 20 mins on their short haul flights? None of it makes sense.

Narrowly, that's good news. More broadly, expanding access to LCY is nuts - much more carbon emitted globally and much more noise and air pollution locally. 25% of all flights out of LCY are to Amsterdam and Edinburgh, both of which are perfectly well served by train from London, and where there is more capacity to put on additional services. The government could have followed the French model of prohibiting air corridors where decent train services exist. https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/17/london-city-airport-journeys-take-under-six-hours-train-data

lol "being a very political politician (now Socialist not Marxist) [McCash] may just be trying to buy time, as you say, while presenting different faces and 'takes' according to his audience; has anyone else noticed how borderline besotted Margy Newens appears to be with him, when she chairs the Scrutiny sessions?" https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/329019-southwark-wide-cpz/?do=findComment&comment=1641314

lol "Rejoice in our socialist council, giving to the rich and taking from the poor."

They weren't ignored. The council spent endless time over the years responding to the increasingly arcane queries of a dwindling number of "no surrender" Dulwich Village locals. They simply haven't got their way.

Is that before or after the Bill Gates COVID microchips are implanted in us? The woke active travel conspiracy goes back further than I thought!

Discussion of a street party has moved into full-on conspiracy theory mode. #southwarkderangementsyndrome

This PTAL stuff is a complete distraction and concern trolling. Mr OneDulwich has never explained why removing an LTN to allow private cars more road access everywhere will improve public transport. He has never explained why he is also opposed to LTNs in places with high PTAL scores. And he has never proposed any measure that would improve public transport generally or PTAL scores specifically.

Cheer up, it's National Wet Blanket Day the week after.

If people on a street decide to organise a little street party, they're not doing it to disrupt their neighbours. If they don't decide to do it, there's no disruption to worry about.

Instead of getting into meta-arguments about what people do and don't remember the history to be, why not just link to the data?

You can't even move (let alone time restrict, charge or even delete) a parking space without it being portrayed as part of a council cash grab, a conspiracy to destroy high streets, a left woke virus 5G war on motorists...

If you've got a garden that's big enough to host a party for your whole street, then a) congratulations and b) can I be invited too?

Point of order: where are private schools banned? They exist in Denmark, Sweden, Norway - not many of them, but they're not banned. Dulwich College has apparently put their prices up 8% this year, as they have in most recent years. One leftist rag pointed out that boarding fees at Dulwich College have been higher than at Eton even before COVID. DC just built a new junior school, so evidently there aren't empty classrooms despite years of above-inflation price rises. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-pay-for-the-privilege/ The recent fee increases at Dulwich College are not connected with its participation in an illegal price fixing cartel - all that behaviour is in the pas. But even through that period of anticompetitive prices rises, the schools didn't suffer a drop-off enrolment due to raising fees. https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/the-public-school-maffia-6987085.html

So allocating road space for car parking instead of bus lanes doesn't slow buses, but there needs to be a balance between car parking and bus lanes when allocating road space, but there's no halfway house between bus lanes being important or unimportant? Crikey. If that was the clear answer to one half of a yes/no question, I won't ask again for the other half. Still, TfL and Southwark Council will be very encouraged to hear they're doing a perfect job in balancing car parking and bus lanes (apart from Waterloo Bridge, I suppose). It's a contrast to the abuse and conspiracy theory they normally get treated to on here. I might make them a little plaque to commemorate it! Cheerio!!!

No, I'm trying to work out what the answers to the yes/no questions are! Do you think that the volume of other vehicles parked or being driven on roads in Dulwich affects the speed or reliability of buses - yes or no? There's been a bit of a U-turn on the first bit (first saying car parking doesn't slow buses down at all, and then saying a balance is needed), and an answer to the second bit hasn't shown up yet...maybe it's stuck behind a bunch of private cars...

So is what you're saying that allocating road space to car parking instead of bus lanes can slow buses down, but that might be a price worth paying for other benefits?

But if allocating road space to car parking instead of bus lanes doesn't slow down buses, then why is there between the two?

Buses are quicker along the roads (like bits of Lordship Lane, Dog Kennel Hill, bits of the South Circular) where there are bus lanes, and slower along the bits where there are not bus lanes. In some places, the road is too narrow for a bus lane under any conditions - some of the roads in Dulwich were designed for Victorian carts. In other places, there has been a decision to allocate road space to car parking instead of a bus lane. The consequence of that decision is that buses are slower because they have to wait behind all the other traffic. This is undeniable. Whether the bus can "traverse" these roads at all is a red herring. The question is whether bus speed and reliability is adversely impacted. This made me lol! Does it go the other way too? If we pushed people off buses into low occupancy private cars, do you think that would improve bus speeds? 😀 😄

You certainly do! Some six year old document based on even older data seems very important to you. Meanwhile, for anyone else who has an interest, the up to date PTAL data is freely available on the TfL website (link below). People can come to their own conclusion about whether Mr OneDulwich's multiyear odyssey to abolish LTNs and increase private vehicle access will make public transport better or worse. https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/urban-planning-and-construction/planning-applications/planning-with-webcat

It depends if the drivers have time and can be bothered. I’ve seen them swap a couple of batteries and drive off, leaving loads of them all over the shop. It’s the companies’ fault, really…

Ehh - if you want to live in a red zone, then you're basically either living within about 300-400 metres of a train station or you're living along a major artery like Walworth Rd or Norwood Rd that has multiple 24 hour buses. That's not a realistic ambition for most of Dulwich... ...but we could realistically make the existing bus routes more reliable and efficient by getting some of the low occupancy private vehicles that are clogging up limited road space.

Yes, exactly - Dulwich Village (and the strip of low-density/expensive housing either side of it, and Dulwich Park, and the sports clubs, and Dulwich College) scores low on PTAL. Dulwich as a whole (and particularly the parts of Dulwich where most residences are packed into) scores well on PTAL. "Calculating PTAL scores is fairly straightforward and is based on the distance to the nearest public transport stop from a given point, as well as the frequency and reliability of the services using that stop. Each point is then awarded a score from 1 (extremely poor access) to 6 (excellent access), with subdivisions 1a, 1b and 6a, 6b." https://blog.podaris.com/ptal-accessibility-analysis/ So obviously that low housing density part of Dulwich is going to score worse on PTAL than the rest of Dulwich because for the most part: a) you're a few minutes' walk from a bus stop that only has a single route (the P4 along College Rd or P13 along A205 or 37 along HML) or West Dulwich/North Dulwich/Herne Hill BR as the nearest public transport stop (esp if you're standing in the middle of the playing fields or parks etc that constitute a lot of the blue blob). b) the P4's reliability is poor because its obstructed by the volume of traffic and/or parked cars along the South Circular, College Rd, Dulwich Village, Red Post Hill etc... Just about the only bus lane the P4 has between Brixton Police Station and Ladywell is the stretch between the tile shop and the Horniman on the A205. The rest of the time it's stuck behind low occupancy traffic. An exception to this is in the weekday mornings and afternoons when the Dulwich Village timed restriction is on: then it flies between the A205 and North Dulwich...and gets stuck behind private cars again. Mind you, to go back to an earlier point, 90% of this country would love to be a few minutes' walk from a bus that runs 20 hours a day, at least every 15 minutes, costs £1.75, and connects to a tube station, half a dozen rail stations on several lines and a DLR station. Sorry - edit to add that the PTAL-rated 1 areas (the purple bits) up to Sydenham Hill are pretty much all playing fields, parks, golf course etc. Obviously there isn't great public transport running through the centre of Dulwich Park!

...that relies on data that is (at least) six years old. The link to the up to date data on the TfL website is above.