Earl Aelfheah

Lol

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But regardless of only using the car twice a > month, aren?t you still going to have to pay a fee > for every day your car (if non-ULEZ compliant) is > parked in/enters the ULEZ zone ? That was my understanding.

I?m getting rid of mine at the moment. Been using it less and less and it?s become safer to cycle locally with the kids since the LTNs were introduced. Hoping they won?t be reversed, but thinking they probably will. Either way, I can?t justify keeping a car when I use it so infrequently and of course there are the environmental considerations. Understand it?s difficult if you have elderly parents or family who rely on you and aren?t nearby.

It's best not to reply to requests for evidence or respond to questions. Just make unsubstantiated assertions, contradictory statements and call people names. This isn?t a discussion forum.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Aside from those with mobility issues, who has > said they want it to be easier to drive to the > shops? It was suggested that because the restrictions are making it more difficult to drive to Dulwich Village the shops are suffering and businesses are failing. Just read up the thread a little.

It?s unreasonable to ask someone to clarify their position on a public discussion forum. Got it.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So Dulwich has a PTAL of 1 - Very Poor, so why > LTNs were introduced..is a mystery to me...well > actually not a mystery as we know the real reasons > LTNs went in, but anyway this score is based on. > > ? Walking time from the point-of interest to the > public transport access points; > ? The reliability of the service modes available; > ? The number of services available within the > catchment; and > ? The level of service at the public transport > access points - i.e. average waiting time. > And Dulwich scores the lowest possible on PTAL. So are you suggesting that car use in this area should not be discouraged until such time as we see significant improvements to public transport? Because at the moment people are claiming they want fewer cars and more active travel, but that they also want it to be easier to drive to the shops and that cycling isn?t going to help with congestion. Abe is clear that in his opinion people will oppose any restrictions on car use. What?s your view on this? Do you think there should be attempts to restrict or reduce car use?

Tell me Heartblock - Do you believe that any changes which make it more difficult to drive around locally, or that restrict car access or use, will not be strongly opposed?

But to be clear, Abe is saying he does not want any restrictions on car use. Which is fine. I respect that honesty. Let?s not pretend that if the LTNs are scrapped, it will leave the door open for the speedy development of some as yet undefined alternative for reducing car use and increasing active travel which will garner the support of the majority of ?One Dulwich? folk. As Abe points out, any attempt to restrict or reduce cars will be ?strongly opposed?. I agree, which is why I would rather work to make the current scheme better, instead of returning everything to the previous, congested state - a manifesto for zero change not just now but into the foreseeable future.

So, no changes to roads? No restrictions on car use? Well at least it?s honest.

Does anyone believe that any changes which make it more difficult to drive around locally, or restricts car access or use, will not be strongly opposed?. Honestly?

So do we want it to be easier to drive around the local area / to the local shops, or more difficult? Do we want to restrict the use of cars and encourage active travel (which means inconveniencing car users), or remove barriers to driving? It would be good to understand first principles. Because people will line up against something quite easily, but it?s more difficult to get agreement on any concrete change proposal which requires trade offs and where there will be winners and losers.

Got it

There was exactly the right amount of traffic before the LTN. Just enough for businesses in the Village and on Lordship Lane to flourish? which is what we want. But also we don?t want to just return things to how they were, that?s a mischaracterisation. But less traffic (which we want) does impact business, which is bad. So does more traffic by the way. It needs to be easy for people to drive to the shops, which we don?t want to encourage of course. But we?re not against change.

So business in the Village is suffering from there being fewer cars, and Lordship Lane business is suffering from there being more?

If one wants to remove cheap labour, then increase the minimum wage. How does adding loads of red tape and non tariff barriers to trade with your closest neighbours and the world?s largest single market improve the economy? Creating labour shortages, supply chain problems and erecting trade barriers is not a way to encourage a move to high value industries.

How come people haven?t started panic buying toilet roll?

Does some like a very light sentence on the face of things. Could have easily ended up in a death

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It is increasingly delusional to also suggest that > cycling is the solution to London's congestion > problems. It?s delusional to think that cars are the solution to London?s congestion problems.

And Ed station. Great!

The Lime scooters are now in Ed!

Easy access to online information hasn't made us smarter or better informed unfortunately.

Apologies, edited above. Apparently the new-build homes on The Aylesbury Estate are less energy efficient than those being demolished. Not great. The whole gaslighting thing about Thatcher closing mines for environmental reasons is just beyond parody.

It's the worst.

Ultimately, if one thinks it's a good thing to have safer streets, fewer cars, more active travel etc. then we have to actually make some changes to how we allocate space.