Earl Aelfheah

It?s great. A really positive use of a previously derelict space. Everyone should support it imo.

You've been here 75 years and you think traffic has got worse over that time because of changes to road layouts rather than an increase in the number of vehicle?

It is weird to hear people who want to make it easier to drive (which any way you cut it, results in more cars/ car journeys), using pollution as a justification for this position. If you just built more and more roads and made them bigger and bigger, so cars can travel faster - pollution would drop... Yeah right.

Apparently there has been a doubling in cycling on the Dulwich filtered streets

Thought this was interesting and pretty reflective of my direct experience of the reality on Lordship Lane (I?m sure plenty will dispute it is real): https://twitter.com/cleanairdulwich/status/1336318085985267714?s=21

I still think we'll get some sort of half baked deal. It will satisfy exactly nobody. Brexiteers will cry betrayal and stich up, by everyone and anyone and take zero responsibility themselves. It's all very predictable and depressing. Boris will not make it to the next election imo.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lots going on but one hell of a backlash on this > forum re: Low Traffic Neighbourhoods. Three areas > of particular interest to me > > 1. How LTN - Low Traffic Neighbourhoods - could > be done better (rather than individual threads > about where a vocal (minority?) are up in arms) > PS behaviour change takes time and got some good > stuff from Sustrans, will post later rather than > inflame things further as it can look a little > patronising. > 2. Linked to the above, safer cycling and shared > road space. Pavements aren't for cyclists but > most road users believe roads aren't similarly. > There is still mass antipathy from drivers towards > cyclists. Rather than change this view and > actually get 20mph zones etc to work we have > instead moved to segregated cycle ways, which can > be a clumsy compromise. > 3. Cycle theft. I pop to the shops for a paper, > have to chain my bike up and take the lights off, > taking longer than actually being in the shop. I > go out for the night, will my bike still be there > when I return? Had four nicked, three in London. > One was on gumtree the same evening, but the > police were not resourced to chase this up. > > PS Bike Register marking, Franklins, Saturday 31st > 10 - 2 Electric hire schemes (such as Lime, or Uber) and a few segregated cycle lanes connecting to local tube and train stations would usher in a step change. It would normalise 'hopping on a bike' for short journeys, would remove the ownership / theft issue for individuals and massively broaden it's appeal, outside of the middle aged men in lycra brigade.

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I watched Trump?s ?Victory Rally? in the early > hours. > What a depressing experience. > Why are the Republicans not denouncing this ?! > America seems lost of their leader can voted out, > refuse to leave, deny the election outcome, spread > unrest amongst his supporters, disable the > democratic process and self-enrich at will, > repeatedly (let alone self-pardon !). It's so depressing. Trump is gonna trump, but where are the decent Republicans? They can't all be as deranged / morally vacuous as the Donald?!

@Siduhe - just seen your post above. I think it's very fair. I was critical of the way the council approached this, for many of the reasons you allude to. The reality is however, that we now have the schemes we have and if they were to be reversed, I think the impact overall would be quite negative. I appreciate that doesn't help you or your neighbours. I think you are right to push the council for mitigation / review or your particular circumstances.

Dulwichgirl82 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But it?s not redirecting? The redirection has been > from the closed roads to the main road, > effectively giving their traffic to others. > restoring the status quo would be going back to > what it was. And there have been 5 roads closed in > east dulwich onto one road. So yes I would rather > 6 roads get some traffic than one road with > houses, schools nursery?s and a health centre gets > it all. > > > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I have never accepted the argument that there > is > > huge amounts of displacement into main roads. > > Interestingly though your logic works the other > > way round... if there has been massive > > displacement as you suggest then it is hard to > see > > how it would be reasonable to redirect all > those > > cars down the side streets. You are insisting there has been massive displacement of traffic from side streets. This relies on the premise that these roads (a) can carry large amounts of traffic, (b) that large amounts of traffic on side streets is acceptable. My experience is that in reality it only takes a truck, or a couple of vans meeting each other / trying to cut through a street like Melbourne Grove to cause chaos - both on the road itself and at the junctions of that road. But either your argument is right, and removing the LTNs would send large numbers of cars onto narrow side streets, or it's not, in which case the LTNs cannot be the primary cause of increased congestion since the start of the pandemic. Either way, I don't see how allowing cars to use side roads as 'cut throughs' discourages short car journeys.

The reality is, you cannot reduce car use without making it less convenient / more expensive, providing better alternatives, or both. LTNs are definitely part of the answer. They both make short car journey's less appealing and make cycling / walking a more attractive option, by creating some quieter streets off the main roads. Public transport improvements are also required, but take much longer and are more expensive. That said, we have seen a number of improvements across London in the last decade or so. What definitely isn't going to reduce short car journeys or encourage people to try cycling for the first time, is allowing vehicles to cut through side streets.

I have never accepted the argument that there is huge amounts of displacement on to main roads. Interestingly though your logic works the other way round... if there has been massive displacement as you suggest then it is hard to see how it would be appropriate to redirect all those cars down narrow side streets.

... the exception being the north part of Melbourne which was often pretty bad simply because it was too narrow to accommodate the large vehicles that often tried to navigate it

I don?t think traffic was terrible on side streets before. But they were never the less used as cut throughs to and from the main roads.

So the LTNs are simultaneously making it ?impossible? to drive anywhere and *also* doing nothing to discourage short car journeys. It?s just not credible that both these things are true Dulwichgirl82 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I?m fairly sure we?ve been through this before > rahrah. Yes traffic needs to be reduced, short > journeys are good to target for this. However can > you show that closing the roads does this rather > than just divert those journeys elsewhere, > ironically probably travelling further in more > congestion increasing pollution. I think the onus > is on the pro closure lobby to prove this works > rather than the other way, as this is an > experimental order after all. Those living and > using the diversion streets report much worse > traffic and congestion and yet this seems to be > entirely ignored by the pro closure lobby. > > > > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Does anyone on here arguing against LTNs also > > agree that we need to reduce the number of > short > > car journeys? If so, can you explain how > allowing > > cars to use side streets as cut throughs will > > achieve this?

Does anyone on here arguing against LTNs also agree that we need to reduce the number of short car journeys? If so, can you explain how allowing cars to use side streets as cut throughs will achieve this?

ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 3xr: clutching at straws. > > > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Farage (predictably) is jumping on the anti > bike > > lane / anti low traffic neighbourhoods ticket. Just stating a fact. He is vowing to stand candidates against any local politician supporting LTNs and bike lanes: https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/nigel-farage-vows-reform-party-oppose-government-green-transport-schemes-grant-shappsboris-johnson-784845

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But so what? That was always predictable and I > doubt there are very few, if any, Farage > supporters on here. Just because someone jumps on > an issue for their own ends does not invalidate > the issue. Wasn't suggesting it does necessarily. Just pointing out that he is now on the bandwagon. Will certainly amplify anti-LTN campaign though.

Farage (predictably) is jumping on the anti bike lane / anti low traffic neighbourhoods ticket.

Helping cars to use side streets as a 'cut through' to shave a few minutes off their journey, is not going to discourage short car journeys.

So assuming 'one dulwich' get their way, and we allow people to cut down side streets again in order to save a little time - can someone explain how this will discourage short car journeys and encourage walking and cycling please?

So assuming 'one dulwich' get their way, and we allow people to cut down side streets again in order to save a little time - can someone explain how this will discourage short car journeys and encourage walking and cycling please?

Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah > > Actually walking along Court Lane or Woodwarde > > Road in the dark is not very pleasant when > there > > is no passing traffic. Too quiet and just the > > kind of place for a person to hang about and > see > > what they can steal off a passer by. Hardly > > Beirut but that is not what Abe meant." > > You quoted me. I am nowhere near alone in feeling > it is more threatening for older people to walk on > closed roads. So encouraging more traffic is a safety issue?

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I don't believe the council is talking about > > eliminating private cars. No one is sensibly > > suggesting this. > > > > We probably do need fewer cars on our streets > > however and also fewer people driving short > trips. > > I'm not sure how anyone could really think that > > would be a bad thing to achieve. > > > The council has stated its aim is to reduce car > usage by 50%. So how is that 'eliminating private cars'?

Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Gosh yes - without a steady stream of Uber > Priuses > > driving along Dulwich Village it might quite > > quickly turn into 1980s Beirut. > > Actually walking along Court Lane or Woodwarde > Road in the dark is not very pleasant when there > is no passing traffic. Too quiet and just the > kind of place for a person to hang about and see > what they can steal off a passer by. Hardly > Beirut but that is not what Abe meant. So the (alledged) displaced traffic is making main roads safer now?