Earl Aelfheah

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/

If we could get a segregated bike Lane on EDG / Half Moon Lane, it would be much easier for people to connect to Henre Hill and onwards via the Railton LTN to Brixton tube with grab and go electric bike.

BTW - Lime (electric hire bikes), have again extended their operating area so people can now hop on one for Herne Hill Station from ED to connect with the Thames link.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well done Rahx3 for reposting exactly what I > posted before - as you can see the ED Grove > Central ATC has 4 counts on the 6th, 13th, 20th > and 27th Sept 2021 and none in the period from > 2016 up until those counts. As I said a new ATC > from 2021, so the pre-LTN data is modelled. It has a count in 2019. It also has counts for East and West and turning data. So it has accurate data for that section both before and after the implementation of the LTN. I suggest that anyone interested in the data simply looks for themselves.

All raw traffic data files are available for download via Southwark maps. Select ?Southwark Highways? as the map configuration and then select ?traffic counts?. https://geo.southwark.gov.uk/connect/analyst/mobile/#/main This tells you where, when and how data was collected: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/77419/FAQ-and-data-collection-methodology_Dulwich-Streetspace_Sept-2021.pdf

It?s interesting how many people claim to be in favour of reducing car use, reducing pollution and increasing walking and cycling yet oppose every effort to actually achieve these things.

Thanks for sharing

Btw, I just noticed that Rockets claimed the traffic count data published was ?modelled? and not based on actual vehicle counts. That?s not true.

Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But to follow up on penguins point > > They can't tell what sort of engine the vehicle is > using > If 100 hybrids or electric go over it on battery > power for example, it still counts then as cars > and therefore the calculated figures will be > inaccurate. > > Therefore "guestimated" figures based solely on > volume not engine type are at best misleading at > wirst just completely wrong. You can use data on the proportion of hybrid, electric, diesel and petrol vehicles registered and combine with counts and weights of traffic, as well as flow data to get a pretty accurate idea of pollution levels. This is what they mean by ?modelling?. You can see the methodology in the report, published on Soutgwarks website. It?s not perfect, but as long as you apply the same methods consistently over time, you get a good idea of trend. As we have seen with the traffic monitoring data however, if it doesn?t show what people already believe to be the case, many will dismiss it. As a reminder, traffic counts show traffic across all monitoring sites down by 12% and cycling up by 61%.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It is a one point measure, it has only had one > measurement and therefore change cannot be > calculated. A point measure is not a stretch. All > the schools have ED Grove buildings on this road, > the main entrance for Charter will be on ED Grove > when completed, the main entrance of JAGs is on > EDG and it is the main route for children to > travel. I would rather live in my 'ridiculous' > questioning world than an appearance of blindly > following dogma without question or inspection of > skewed data. > I have actually called for local PT, bike lanes, > to keep school road timed closures and I support > road pricing. > > Telling people what they think, calling them > ridiculous and misrepresenting their beliefs is > called gaslighting, it happens a lot on this > subject. The monitoring data for East Dulwich Grove Central (near Tessa Jowell Health Centre), saw a 20% decrease in traffic between Sept 19 and Sept 21. The main entrance to ED Charter is in Melbourne Grove; This is simply a fact. Your call to remove the restrictions on through traffic would increase traffic around the school.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 1. Traffic hasn't dropped because this point > measure is new in Sept 2021, so it is impossible > to prove a drop at a single point on one count. > 2. There are three schools on EDG > 3. Two of Charter's entrances are on EDG and the > sports field is 2 metres from EDG and the main > entrance will be on ED Grove at the chateau if you > look at the plans, does that mean Melbourne will > open and EDG become the LTN? > 4. Explicit means - stated clearly and in detail, > leaving no room for confusion or doubt, so nope > 5. Through traffic means - traffic which continues > on a road or highway rather than crossing onto a > different road. all through traffic has been > diverted, so the through traffic or diverted > traffic is as you have willingly admitted now on > EDG Traffic on the central section of EDG has dropped. Your argument that this doesn?t include the school, because vehicle volumes have only been measured at two points either side of it, is absolutely ridiculous. You have called for the removal of the filter on Melbourne Grove North, to create through traffic from EDG to Grove Vale, passing the entrance of Charter. So yes, you are explicitly arguing for more cars to pass the entrance of the school. Alleyn?s is also inside of the new traffic restrictions btw.

Anyone know when the Met are due to complete their investigation/ the Gray report drop?

Heartblock references the school: "Before the x5 LTNs forcing traffic to be funnelled down my high density residential school road". I'm simply pointing out that traffic on the East Dulwich Grove side of Charter has actually dropped, and through traffic on Melbourne Grove North (where the main entrance is), has been removed. Heartblock has explicitly called for through traffic to run past the entrance to the school.