Earl Aelfheah

Bic Basher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dulwich Village is too close to call and a > barometer to see if the LTN measures have been a > success with the electorate or not Whether they've been 'popular', not whether they've been a success

PTAL at ED Station is a 4 as it is for most of ED. Goldilocks is right about the Village - If you paved over all the green spaces, PTAL there would rise, but probably not something anyone wants to see. Agree about the number 40. Don't know why it no longer goes to London Bridge. That said, we can now get the East London Line from Denmark Hill which is an improvement.

Beulah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My wife was subjected to an attempted robbery for > her Brompton bike tonight around 8.20pm on the > path that runs from Dulwich Hamlet stadium to > Green Dale. > A young man - aged in his teens in a hoodie > wearing dark clothing - grabbed her bike and told > her to let go of it. > She thinks he was hiding somewhere along that > section close to the barriers knowing cyclists > have to slow down there. > She refused to give him the bike and started > shouting and screaming for help. > Thankfully someone in Shaw Road backing onto the > pathway heard and shouted something like ?I?ll > call the police?. > That seemed to scare off the attacker, who ran off > and my wife made it home with the bike. > My wife is unharmed but shocked and the bike has > some slight damage. > But obviously it could have been more serious and > I wouldn?t advise putting up a struggle. > > So please keep an eye out. > We?ve reported it to police. > And thank you to the person who intervened. Sorry to hear about this, and thanks for the heads up. I hope you're wife isn't too shaken.

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > One day we will look back incredulous that traffic > was moved from the richest, greenest part of town > to create arid dead villages in the centre of a > major city. I love the idea that we need more traffic in order for places to feel verdant and alive. Do you want more traffic or less traffic, I'm confused.

BTW, the data is not fuzzy, nor is the methodology. You can see when the baseline data was collected and the location it was collected for EDG here: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/77419/FAQ-and-data-collection-methodology_Dulwich-Streetspace_Sept-2021.pdf The only reason it may appear 'fuzzy' to those who taking this thread as their main source of information, is because you're misrepresenting what the council has said regarding the data collected.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I?m not opposed to LTNs ?on principle? but I have > not seen any published evidence that they reduce > car use or pollution in this area and the fuzzy > data, although flawed and with dubious use of > statistical methodology- shows that traffic on my > road, outside my flat has risen by over 20% ... as > observed. The only fundamentalists here are the > individuals that cling onto the failed LTNs in > this area, in the hope those impacted by more > pollution just go away and shut-up, so people on > quiet closed roads, can enjoy the rise in house > prices and freedom from the rif-raf. > Next move will be gated communities USA style. Failed how? They've reduce car use across the wider area, to the benefit of the vast majority of people locally. They've increased active travel, particularly the number of children walking and cycling to school. You reject the data, deny the existence of peer reviewed research on LTNs generally, and talk about gated communities? It's absolutely clear that there is no evidence that you would accept that does not fit your pre-existing view.

ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Anyone who actually lives in the area, especially > on the roads impacted by the LTN can see an > increase in traffic with their own eyes. > > heartblock Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Oh look.....20% more traffic on East Dulwich > > Grove.... well obviously I wasn?t making it up! > > > > https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/i > > > > mproving-our-streets/live-projects/streetspace/tra > > > ffic-data-analysis > > > > Oh and also I was correct in this too ?No data > > collected for East Dulwich Grove Central prior > to > > September 2021? I regularly cross East Dulwich Grove at the junction of Melbourne Grove and traffic appears noticeably down to me. But others will disagree. Which is why it's better to look at actual vehicle counts than perception.

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yep, I don?t need ?data? to recognise traffic > increase in my road due to LTN spillage. Now a > more dangerous road with frantic drivers and > speeders noticeably worse than before. Don?t need > to look at no binomial distribution. And this is the problem. There isn't any data which would convince those who are opposed to LTNs on principle. It's become an article of faith for some. Interseting that there is both more congestion and higher speeds btw. How's that work?

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Direct from the latest StreetSpace Southwark > Council. The dashboard contains data from 9 sites, where they've collected traffic data continuously from January 2021 to January 2022. It doesn't contain data from ED central prior to September 21. But if you look through the website you'll see that there is data which was collected in 2019. There is a full explanation of the methodology, including the location of data monitoring. See here: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/77419/FAQ-and-data-collection-methodology_Dulwich-Streetspace_Sept-2021.pdf

Shouting and screaming at councillors about attempts to reduce car use and people raising awareness of imminent climate breakdown *slow handclap*

'Brexit itself doesn't really do anything'. OK

Wow, there are some weird questions on that test. Which British actors recently won an oscar? Is this relevant to living here?

Waseley Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You could level the same criticism at any scheme > that restricts motorists (money generator) - CPZs, > general parking, speed controls, access controls. > Some in society consider there should be no > controls on drivers. Most fortunately don't > agree. There is as ever a discussion on > incentives Vs penalties and where revenue goes. Yep. It seems likely cars are highly subsidised in reality. Motorists pay around ?38bn a year to the treasury's coffers, around ?10bn less than the estimated cost to society (in terms of health, space and infrastructure). So much of the true cost is 'externalised'.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rah x 3 with the same old..maybe people oppose > LTNs because they want less pollution and traffic > on their roads rather than the requirement to > drive on any road....if you want less cars, go > talk to the people who own multiple vehicles on > Gilkes and Calton. > I'm happy for all private cars to be banned in the > whole of Southwark! Not sure the second home - > Range Rover owning - gated road living types would > agree.. Trust me, the vast majority of Range Rover owners in Dulwich are against any restrictions on driving. I?m not sure who you think makes up most of the ?One? membership, but have a walk about and look in the driveways of those displaying ?One? placards and posters. If you support more radical restrictions on private car use, I suspect you?re aligning with the wrong people.

I see many of the same people claiming to oppose LTNs because somehow more cars means less pollution (?!), are also railing against the ULEZ 🤷‍♂️

sweetgirl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Goodness me! > Open your 👀 > Nothing more than a revenue generator as > previously stated! > Cars being forced to idle in traffic making it a > longer journey, I guess that?s ok is it? > The whole thing is a shambles but will continue as > it?s making the councils money! > The rich, wealthy (call them what you like) will > all be taking a hit soon! > So far I read a article where dulwich ltn?s have > raised over 5million! > > Sad to see that people are working like dogs just > to pay bills & keep tree huggers happy! ULEZ

You want to see more high polluting vehicles in London? What is this?

kissthisguy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Although the Ivy would be nice, wouldn't it be > great to see a non-chain restaurant in Dulwich > Village? Creative menus are to be found in Peckham > eg the Kudu places, Levan, Forza Wine. Shame ED's > Terroirs closed and the orig Palmerston is no > more. Is it that only chains can afford the rents? Rising rents definitely an issue in terms of new independents. That said we do have a number still on the Lane.

ed_pete Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I wonder what the residents think of the Wine > Retailer/Wine Bar proposed for the old chemists ? > They're applying for a license to drink on the > premises from 09:00 to 22:30, 7 days a week. > > https://app.southwark.gov.uk/licensing/LicPremises > AppliedDetails.asp?systemkey=877119 There's already a couple of restaurants on this stretch and a big pub a stones through away, so would be strange to object.

DuncanW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The stated aim of the scheme has always to reduce > harmful emissions caused by 'more polluting cars'. > The scheme has been successful so far; more so > than anticipated. It really is as simple as that. Exactly. And regardless, I can't see how anyone would think a reduction in the most polluting vehicle is a bad outcome.

Their appeal to populism & nationalism, their capture of elite support though government favours to the wealthy (VIP lanes), limits on public protest and extension of executive power (proroguing parliament), attacks on legal professionals ('activist lawyers') and now on the independent media through threats against the BBC and privatisation of Channel 4... it's all pretty worrying imo.

Personally, I am hoping that Johnson's government will get a firm message from the voters that there time is coming to an end.

Waseley Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So you are not bothered about their other > policies? The Tories introduced the initiative. > Labour implemented it. LDs would like to support > such initiatives but have lost any USP and still > suffering from their time in the coalition. The zeal should not surprise you. Just look at this forum. It's been completely taken over by people obsessed with their 'right' to cut down any side street they like in their cars - They've even managed to convince themselves that having cars dominate every part of Dulwich will somehow increase active travel and reduce traffic (regardless of all data to the contrary).

Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Today TfL finally admitted that the expanded ULEZ > didn't make as much as expected > > BBC News - London's expanded ULEZ raised less > revenue than expected, says TfL > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-60520 > 700 Doesn't this suggest that it's been more successful than expected in reducing the number of high polluting vehicles travelling in the zone?

Today is the last day to comment on initial plans for future boundary changes: https://www.bcereviews.org.uk/