Earl Aelfheah

Sorry you're having to deal with this. Hope you manage to get it sorted.

Think there is an LTN thread in the Lounge.

[removed as this isn't the thread to discuss LTNs]

[removed as this isn't the thread to discuss LTNs]

My neighbour literally 'pops to the lane' in his SUV every weekend to pick up a paper. It is the reality that there are many journeys like this, and I suspect that we all know it. I'm not criticising my neighbour by the way - We make it super easy and convenient to use vehicles in this way. We provide acres of free parking on residential streets. We allocate yet more free space outside the shops on the Lane. Of course people will make use of it. The question is one of policy. Is it right to hand over huge amounts of public space to private vehicles, in such a way that it creates a situation where driving is the most convenient way to pick up a paper a few streets away? Or could all that space be allocated differently? I suspect if we made it a bit more difficult to drive, people would simply switch to walking those types of journeys, and barely notice the difference.

Sit on any bus and you'll see that they're regularly and repeatedly held up by parked cars - because often there isn't room for vehicles to pass each other. This is true on Lordship Lane, where the pavements also get very congested and there are numerous 'pinch points'. If parking spaces were removed (whilst retaining some disabled parking), you could create more space for pedestrians, add extra seating and landscaping, create additional bike parking and speed up buses. It is a choice to prioritise the allocation of public space to a relatively small number of private vehicles.

I am a taxpayer and I would like to see a reduction in car use. Less pollution, less congestion, wider pavements, more planting, safer cycling routes (so that my kids can travel independently), and faster buses. At the moment, huge amounts of public space is prioritised for private car storage - many of which barely move from one week to the next. It is absolutely the role of the council to allocate scarce resources in the way that creates the fairest and broadest benefit to constituents. Prioritising private car ownership in all instances (as some are arguing for) is not that. If you sit on a bus (carrying up to 30 people), you'll notice that many of the cars which are holding those people up, are single occupancy, or are empty / parked. Some will be the result of necessary journeys, many won't - they'll involve short trips which could be walked in less than 20 mins. The council should look to disincentivise someone using a 2 ton piece of heavy machinery to move themselves a few streets to grab a paper, in my opinion.

So you don't support any efforts to discourage short, single occupancy journeys, or you don't believe they exist here?

Most Londoners walk a lot. But a third or car journeys are still under 2km. I don't know why you think one fact invalidates the other.

It's the usual arguments from the usual people. We care about pollution, congestion and road safety: But no restrictions on car use, free on street parking, more rat running and bigger cars are all fine. We want more active travel and better public transport: But no improvements to infrastructure for bikes, pedestrians or buses (more important to have space for car storage than wider pavements, protected bike lanes, or room for buses to pass each other)

...personally, I believe it is a reasonable aspiration to discourage some of those journeys, in order to reduce pollution and congestion and improve health.

Obviously I would include those too. There are probably other examples of essential car journeys - those given weren't meant to be an exhaustive list. But if you sit on a bus in rush hour you'll see that almost every car has 1 person in it. 1 ton of steel (or more), to carry 1 person. TFL data suggests a little over a third (35 per cent) of all car trips are shorter than 2 km (and another 32 per cent are between 2 and 5km). A significant number of those journeys could be undertaken very easily by bus, bike, or foot. Not all of those individuals are vulnerable, disabled, or moving large items. This is not sustainable.

No. I think lots of people regularly burn fuel moving more than a ton of steel, to travel short distances on their own. This is what all the data shows. That's not to say that some don't use the car for necessary journeys (travelling longer distances, with kids, or to move big items), but we know that a significant number of trips are single occupancy, under 2km and could easily be undertaken in different ways. Many also store cars on the street that rarely move anywhere at all, but take up huge amounts of room. Nearly all other 'on street' storage is charged - be it a skip, or a place in a bike hanger. Considering the damage that motor vehicles do to others, it is ridiculous that so much public space is handed over to private vehicle storage 'free' (i.e. with a subsidy).

They're asking you pay 60p a day to store a car on the street. They're not 'attacking car drivers'. This thread was about parking charges which apply around the station. The latest data linked to by above suggests that the PTAL around the station, Champion Hill, Goose green and toward Peckham goes higher than 3, even up to '5' in some areas (although a '3' is itself 'moderate')- take a look. Around the village it is lower, as too is housing density; lot's of green space and few buses.

PTAL varies across the area. Some of Dulwich has a relatively low PTAL (for London, which generally has excellent transport). Around the station (because of the station), it is much higher. This is where the parking restrictions are. https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/urban-planning-and-construction/planning-with-webcat/webcat

Yes, the council does want to reduce car use. I don’t think they’ve hidden that fact. I’m not sure who wouldn’t want to see reduced car use. The PTAL around East Dulwich train station is not low. There is err… a train station there.

Yes, I think in many places we could widen pavements (obviously not by 5 foot). They've just done exactly this on Bellenden road - removing some parking, widening pavements and putting in extra seating and some bike racks. It's made for a much nicer environment.

"Unless there's some reason to restrict it" There is a reason to restrict it. On-street parking reduces the space available for pedestrians and makes it difficult for vehicles to pass each other, causing congestion, increasing pollution and slowing buses. Acres and acres of public land are given over to private car storage. Don't see much difference to temporarily storing a skip on the street, which no one would suggest should be free. I note that on-street bike lockers also charge users.

We're one of very few areas in inner London which still gives over huge amounts of public land for car storage at the heavily subsidised rate of nothing. Even in the few areas where there is a charge, and even with an increase, 62p to store a 4.5 x 2m metal box on public land for 24 hours, seems pretty cheap. It costs significantly more if you want to park a skip on the street.

Quite good to have a burrito place on the Lane. At least its not another pizza restaurant.

Terrapins have a surprisingly long life span, so may not necessarily be breeding - could just be the same ones that have been there for years.

My money is on the turtle to win

This looks they're being pitted against each other in a fight promotion.

A Wagamama will be massively popular.

Interesting. Perhaps something will finally be done with the building.