Earl Aelfheah

Might be a good. Certainly worth piloting. I would like to see North Cross Road improved too though. They should permanently pedestrianise it and put in more landscaping, seating etc.

I won't go to Gail's.

I take it back. The line of parked cars actually extend out further than the pavement extension did. Why did they close the bus stop in the first place?

The parked cars that have replaced the extended pavement are exactly the same width. The pavement just replaced the parking. There is no reason why we couldn't have had a wider pavement and had the bus stop in operation.

scarlettbanks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Some new(ish) restaurants in Peckham, that I have > really enjoyed and haven't seen mentioned on these > pages: > > - 'Whole Beast' @ Kanpai London Sake Brewery. In > Copeland Park, attached to the Sake Brewery. > Amazing cooking - mostly BBQ stuff, with quite > innovative and exciting flavours - Japanese > influence I think. It's quite informal (no > waiters, you just go and order, and collect your > food when the buzzer buzzes) but for me it's the > most exciting new Peckham restaurant for a while. > Lots of outdoor seats - no booking necessary - has > been plenty of space whenever I've visited (maybe > apart from Friday and Saturday evening when sunny) > - they have some indoor seats in the Sake brewery > too. https://www.instagram.com/wholebeast/ > > - The new 'marketplace peckham' (near Morrison's, > https://www.marketplacelondon.co.uk/peckham/home) > has a lot of fun streetfood stalls. I really like > Tianjin Dumplings (they make their own dumplings > to order, and have other chinese street food too). > AOneSushi is really good too - much better than > standard high-street sushi - and they have a few > other Japanese dishes. Marketplace Peckham is a > good site to visit with kids - informal, lots of > benches to sit on inside, and you can all order > different food from different stalls. Churros, > sweet shop, bubble tea, and other stalls I haven't > yet tried. > > - Mike's - very nice pizza - unusual flavours - > sold by the slice - Copeland Park (where Forza Win > was). Nice

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > .... and last but not least - safe routes. Yup

I dunno, I'm a pedestrian and it gets really busy outside that row of restaurants / shops even with the extended pavement. I would like it kept personally. Can't be the only pedestrian. I would be surprised if the businesses want the pavement narrowed there too tbh.

It?s really busy with people there at weekends. All giving way for 5 or 6 parked cars.

They?re removing the extended pavement on the other side by the look o things. Presumably to be replaced by parked cars. Real shame. Not sure why Southwark wouldn?t have made this permanent. It?s very narrow outside the cafes / food shops without it.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Seems to cut both ways. > > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I have absolutely no reason to think you?ll > accept > > any data that does not show what you want it > to. > > You?ve dismissed TfL data, freely available in > > it?s entirety. You?ve pretty much rubbished all > > the research on active travel. I could produce > a > > glossy pamphlet with ?open everything to cars > and > > the air will be clear and traffic a thing of > the > > past? if you want 🤷 in fact I think One > > Dulwich already have some. I must of missed the research that shows an increase in road capacity reduces the number of car journeys and increases active travel. If you can point me to it, I'll look at it with an open mind.

The government really need to be clear what the strategy is. It seems likely they're looking to vaccinate as many over 18s and those in vulnerable groups as possible and letting everyone else catch it, in the hope that we reach 'herd immunity'. If so, then they need to spell it out. If that is not the plan, then I don't understand what the hell Johnson is up to, because opening up right now doesn't make any sense.

I have absolutely no reason to think you?ll accept any data that does not show what you want it to. You?ve dismissed TfL data, freely available in it?s entirety. You?ve pretty much rubbished all the research on active travel. I could produce a glossy pamphlet with ?open everything to cars and the air will be clear and traffic a thing of the past? if you want 🤷 in fact I think One Dulwich already have some.

Seabag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > https://apple.news/ALcm2TuuSSZKHZjCUdYg1XA > > Watch the video where Frosty basically says he?s > fkd up trading with NI for many. > > There are ?companies in Great Britain who decide > that it?s all too much trouble, reasonably enough > ? can?t be bothered to engage with the process,? > Lord Frost acknowledged. > > The two people either side of him are particularly > animated, specially the guy to his left. > > It?s an inspiring clip to watch, unless you?re > actually trying to trade. FFS. Just watched this. "might have been foreseeable"... you think?

fishbiscuits Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > alex_b Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > And in Liddle?s case a Police Caution for > > assaulting his partner and a history of racist, > > homophobic and misogynistic articles - > including > > one that caused his magazine to be prosecuted > for > > potentially prejudicing a murder trial. > > Other than that - great bunch of lads. :-)

Summary graphics attached. 24,000 fewer vehicles across the whole area. 3,400 more cycles a day.

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I suspect its because there is unity in > disagreement to the current measures, but as soon > as people specify what they do support then others > will disagree. Exactly this. Which is the real reason that One Dulwich are calling for people to support a 'return to the current state'. The reality is that Low Traffic Neighbourhoods boost cycling and reduce traffic. If you're in favour of that, then you should generally be in favour of LTNs

rjsmall Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is there a link for the full report? At the bottom of this page: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/dulwich-review

It's the first step in East Dulwich's move to rebrand itself as 'South Peckham'

.. What it shows is that traffic is down and active travel is up. Which is exactly what LTNs set out to achieve. The clean air for no one campaign, would put traffic back on to every street and discourage active travel. We need to work to improve traffic on the two streets where there is still a problem (Burbage and EDG). But not to lose the gains we have made.

Attached is the actual summary for those who want to see it.

The data is unreliable! Except where it confirms my opinion, in which case there is no doubt that the same data is reliable!

@Rockets - I stopped discussing Rachel Aldred?s credentials with you, when you refused to even accept a simple fact about how many papers she?s published. All the research on active travel and traffic reduction measures points to the same sorts of solutions. Yet you dismiss it all as biased. TFL?s data has been manipulated. Southwark are suspect. It does feel like an irretrievable case of confirmation bias and a bit of a waste of time debating. To answer your question - yes, I can believe that traffic across the area is generally down and that cycling is up. I know a lot of people who are walking or cycling to local clubs / kids activities etc, when before they would have driven. A lot more families are walking to school. I include myself in this. My behaviour has changed as a result of the LTN schemes. It?s not in anyway surprising to me - It?s what?s happened everywhere restrictions on car use have been put in place. That doesn?t mean that traffic won?t have increased on some streets however. As I have said many times, that needs to be identified through monitoring (not anecdote), and mitigated. But the idea that allowing cars to cut through side roads will ensure ?clean air for all?, is obviously ridiculous. It will only ensure more cars, less active travel and dirty air everywhere.

Turns out that restricting car use does reduce car use and encourage active travel. Like almost every single study shows. Who?d have thunk it? Let?s roll it all back and make driving around locally as easy as possible though. In the name of the environment.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I see "interim" the monitoring data has been > published by the council.....should make some > interesting weekend reading. > https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/i > mproving-our-streets/live-projects/dulwich-review > > I think even the most ardent supporter of the LTNs > might even be tempted to question the council's > numbers......Lordship Lane traffic down 22% and > Croxted Road traffic down 14% > apparently........... > > And apparently traffic on internal roads around > the whole of East Dulwich is down 79%.... > > Cycling is up (not surprisingly) but the claim of > an increase of 1,160 cycles per day along > Calton/Dulwich Village probably needs closer > scrutiny as it seems very high. > > What is the council smoking.......? Do you question the fact that cycling is up and traffic is down, or just the degree to which this is true? You appear to have now accepted that removing cars from some areas does encourage cycling (?unsurprisingly?). Progress of sorts

But if you encourage cars everywhere it ensures 'clean air for all' right?