Earl Aelfheah

mockingbird Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > welcome to our privileged healthy streets ghetto It's a shame they have focussed on the Village, which is already a a bit of a privileged bubble in terms of SE London. May have been better received if they had started with ED or Peckham, both of which have much bigger populations and higher pollution levels.

paulipedia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Every time I've been to the car arks they've been > empty. Going well then... My general observation is that whilst the car park is empty, the park is not. This suggests that more people are walking to the park.

slarti b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah > Following up on the public transport issue I have > been looking at the TFL web site. They use a > measure called Public Transport Access Level or > PTAL,to assess areas access to public transport > rating them on a scale of 1(worst) to 6(best). > Most of the streets in central Dulwich, the areas > affected by this proposal, are rated 2, which > confirms my view about the poor access to public > transport. That's interesting. I'm not particularly surprised that we rank poorly on public transport.

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > how much money have the council spaffed up the > wall consulting on whether or not Melbourne Grove > should become a gated community? A good question!

The Melbourne Grove thing is a bit iffy. I actually think there may be a good case for closure as part of an area wide plan, but that's not really what's happened. Pressure was put on the council by a small number of people to close 'their' street, which disgracefully, the council responded to with their usual knee jerk approach. After a bit of consultation and some fairly strong opposition locally, they decided to pause it. They've now tagged it on to the Dulwich Village scheme in a way that feels a bit opportunistic, again with no reference to a wider East Dulwich area strategy. As such, I suspect there will be unintended consequences.

Perhaps coronavirus related hoarding / stockpiling? It'll be a Lidl soon enough I'd guess.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Corbyn unequivocally supports Hamas Except he doesn't.

Really good news imo

A lot of closures on the Lane recently

The bottom line is that we have to start providing people with better alternatives to the car. Even if it's a bit painful in the short term. It's simply not sustainable to have so much public space given over to motor vehicles. We need to encourage more walking, cycling and invest in public transport (I do worry that this last bit is not getting enough attention).

Pics?

.

The thing I find most annoying about Dulwich Park is that it's permanently waterlogged since Thames Water dug it all up and turned it into a paddling pool.

^this ... edtied to say, not that, the one above it ;-)

Were you parked in a way that someone might have been annoyed with? Near a traffic island for example?

The council has doubled up on streetlights outside my house. Light pollution not a concern apparently

On Heber Road, the council installed two lampposts within a foot or two of each other. I was told that the old one was to be removed, but it's never happened. It's opposite two road sign lights. The stretch of road never darkens.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rahrahrah - I am not sure you can possibly equate > people cycling over Blackfriars bridge to be the > likely outcome in Dulwich Village. We have all > seen the flocks of cyclists - many of them MAMIL's > - bombing in and out of London during the rush > hour and this is to be commended and welcomed but > I would ask how many of those were driving that > route previously or whether, as more likely, they > were train and tube commuters who decided to get a > bit of exercise to and from work? I?m equating the reaction to numerous proposals to rebalance the use of public space with the one here. The fact that any scheme aimed at a more proportionate allocation of space away from motor vehicles is preceded by dire predications which are rarely born out in reality

We always hear these arguements whenever anyone suggests measures to tackle issues with motor traffic. Yet we have seen some massive successes in London. Around 70% of traffic going over Blackfriars bridge during rush hour is now people travelling on bikes, as a result of re-allocating a small amount of space for a segregated bike lane for example. It is equivalent to the number of people carried by 64 full double-decker buses. There isn't the capacity to shift this many people in single occupancy vehicles even if you wanted to. The point is that we have limited space and we give the vast majority (around 80%)of it over to a very inefficient and damaging (albeit occasionally necessary) form of transport. Every time we try to re-balance the use of this scarce resource, we're told that it'll lead to gridlock. But this is almost never the reality once these schemes are introduced. I think it's worth experimenting a little. Something has to change if we're going to tackle climate change, local air pollution and the scandal of thousands of road accidents every year in London. Most people in Southwark don't own a car and so might reasonably question why so much of the public realm is organised around a minority activity with such damaging impacts.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > That traffic will go somewhere - it won't just > magically disappear I predict that quite a lot of it will disappear actually. That's certainly what's been found when other, similar schemes have been introduced. I am a car driver by the way, but recognise that the current situation is unsustainable and that we need change.

The reality of all of this, is that we give huge amounts of public space over to (often single occupancy) motor vehicles. It's totally disproportionate and needs rebalancing in favour of pedestrians and cyclists.

Reading above, it sounds as thought Goose Green has school street closures also. As I say, it seems like a bit of a no-brainer to me.

slarti b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > It's hard to argue against road closures around > schools at opening / closing time imo. Can't > > really understand why this isn't standard > practice tbh. > > Are you suggesting that, as part of this "standard > practise", Dulwich Village, East Dulwich Grove, > Red Post Hill and Lordship Lane should all be > closed during school opneing and closing hours? Some of those schools (Harris Primary for example) already do. Not Lordship Lane, but the road on the other side is closed to traffic as part of the School Streets programme. I don't know about the others, but certainly they could.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am assuming that the few existing shops and > restaurants in Dulwich will be able to continue to > survive with only Dulwich resident custom, because > the chance of visitors to Dulwich is being > extinguished by these proposals. I suspect they do pretty much do now. Who drives to the Village to eat? There's nowhere to park anyway.

It's hard to argue against road closures around schools at opening / closing time imo. Can't really understand why this isn't standard practice tbh.