Earl Aelfheah

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This should have burned itself out by now - why not?? Presumably, people are still buying more fuel than they need 🤷

DuncanW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But don't other areas of Southwark already have > LTNS in one for or other? Yes, they are many across Southwark and London

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This was in my mail today (along with the DA > thing). I?ll say it again - it?s the deliveries we > need to focus on. There was someone on Sky this > morning reflecting on how many HGV drivers have > switched to more local Amazon, supermarket, > gourmet food box type jobs. The increase in traffic on minor roads is largely down to Google maps and Waze etc. Of course, there is silence on the significant displacement this caused away from main roads onto back streets over several years. Re. delivery vans. - one vehicle delivering groceries to 10 houses, rather than 10 individual cars driving back and forth to the shops, is likely to cause a lot less congestion. I'm not sure why we can't accept the idea that traffic is caused by too many (often single occupancy) cars driving around. 'Rat-running' increases on residential UK streets as experts blame satnav apps https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/25/rat-running-residential-uk-streets-satnav-apps

I agree that public transport in the area is not great by London standards. Absolutely agree with that. That does not mean that a large number of local car journeys could not be avoided. One look at a line of single occupancy vehicles, all travelling in the same direction at the same time, many making journey's of less than 2 miles, tells you that. The 'fix public transport before you do anything else' argument, is a manifesto for in action. I will very happily support campaigns for improvements to public transport, but one can do that whilst also campaigning for safe walking and cycling routes and schemes to discourage casual car use.

ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So wanting to ban cars is too much and over the > top but wanting to close roads which causes other > streets to be more congested and polluted is fine- > yeah. > > Typical: I will not give up anything for the cause > but happy to sacrifice others' health and well > being. Yes, I think banning cars is over the top. I would like to see us take reasonable measures to reduce car use, and encourage more active travel - but there will always be times that people need to either drive or be driven. You're in favour of banning cars?

It's easy to say 'we should concentrate on improving public transport before we do anything else', because no one is against better public transport, you can avoid any difficult decisions, and it kicks the can down the road indefinitely. Heartblock says he's not against banning cars when public transport is improved. By how much exactly? Do you really think that the idea of getting to say PTAL 4, and then banning cars is a serious suggestion?

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rahx3 - stop this nonsense about good transport > links - you know that is not true. I pointed out that we don?t have one of the worst PTALs in London. Another assertion by the scientifically rigorous contributor who denies the existence of peer reviewed research by other academics. The PTAL for most of Dulwich is rated ?moderate? (by London standards, which are generally high). I would love to see improvements. But how good does local transport have to be before you attempt to reduce car use? Around 40% of car journeys in London are under 2 miles as we know. It?s an absolute cop out to say, we shouldn?t tackle casual car use until we have , what? A PTAL of 4, 5? Heartblock is talking of banning cars entirely when PTAL improves.. improves to what?! Would you support that? It?s absolute nonsense.

Also, we don?t have ?one of the worst PTALs in London?. We score a 3, which is ?moderate?. And compared with almost anywhere outside of London, is unimaginably good.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No evidence whatsoever that LTNs reduce car > use...none. I know you keep saying this, but it?s not true. >PTAL for DV and ED one of the worse in > London. > Next? And even so, public transport is still better here than probably 90% of the country. We have three train stations in Dulwich, and several on its borders. We have regular buses and electric hire bikes and scooters for ?last mile journeys. From Central London you can connect to several international airports and almost every corner of the country by train. It?s not perfect, but it?s not bad. At what point would it be good enough that you would consider it legitimate to start discouraging car use? As for your support for banning cars- are you serious about this? It?s a bit all or nothing no?

According to the latest YouGov poll, only 18% think Brexit is going well.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't have any issue with banning cars - if > there is a decent public service and no closed > roads - the problem is that LTNs DO NOT reduce car > use...or pollution. You keep saying that LTNs don't reduce car use, but all the available evidence suggests that they do. We have very good public transport compared to 90% of the country - several train stations, lot's of buses, electric hire bikes, and thanks to the introduction of a small number of LTNS, even a few, relatively quiet walking and cycling routes.

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Great, unless you (not YOU, Rahx3) leave them > prone on teh pavement, ready for anyone to trip > over and break leg/neck, etc. Yeh, in some boroughs they?ve created specific ?hire bike? bays on the road, which prevents this. I guess the density doesn?t make that viable / proportionate here. Haven?t noticed it being too much of an issue locally though. You do need to take a photo of where you?ve left it when your ride is up and there are supposedly fines if you don?t park them in a suitable place, but not sure how far this is enforced in reality.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yikes - sounds pretty serious and potentially > criminal if there was dishonest intent in "failing > to declare" the ?25 million. Yeah, sounds extremely dodgy

Wanted to big up the Lime hire bikes which have recently extended their reach to ED. If you haven?t already tried them, they?re great for short journeys to the station, or Brixton tube. Really fun and the electric motor makes easy work of any hills. Much quicker than the bus. Unfortunately Herne Hill is outside the zone, but hopefully will be bought inside of it soon.

Sunlit uplands:

Southeastern have been stripped of their franchise and Helen Hayes is calling for the government to hand suburban rail services in south east London over to TfL. Personally, I think this would be a giant leap forward. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-58716625

I blame Meghan!

scarlettbanks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Had an incredible dinner at newish restaurant Omni > (near the bottom of Rye Lane). All vegan (which I > am not) - incredible flavours, some quite unusual > - the corn ribs with cashew cream for example were > amazing. Has good sandwiches at lunchtime too. Their sandwiches are great. Didn't realise they did dinner - will check it out.

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The men who die? Usually in dispute with other > men > > The women who die? Random unprovoked attacks I?m not sure this is very fair. Many boys and men are victims of random attacks.

Good stuff!

Low traffic schemes benefit the most deprived Londoners, study finds https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2021/mar/02/low-traffic-schemes-benefit-most-deprived-londoners-study-finds?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

slarti b2 > Well, they manged to block the westbound lane of > the junction ( wonder if Rah Rah will be > complaining?) Did they pile bags up between the planters blocking people from turning into the square from the main road? Or do you just mean, ?they were in square?. Presumably you?re bright enough to understand the difference?

Ltns reduce car use and increase active travel, so fit quite well with speaking up on climate change. But yes, why not go to the event and demand that we make it easier to drive locally. You could stand outside with a ?tackle climate change? banner and get drivers to hoot their horns in support.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Actually, it is reasonable to have a new thread. I > agree with Legal...not just this 'consultation', > but also about consulting on infilling and > building on parks. 100's of videos from locals > angry about not being consulted about building on > a park, in the 5 year lead up echos the terrible > job of consulting on LTNs. > > It is perfectly reasonable for ED forum users to > discuss how their Council uses their Council Tax > and what representation local Councillors in Goose > Green, Village Ward actually give us on the full > Southwark Council and Council senate. Otherwise > what is the point of them? There is also a thread about the infilling of parks (which I agree is pretty poor). But sure, let's have another duplicate thread, why not.

Population of London has dropped for the first time in 30 years, driven by Brexit and the pandemic: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jan/07/london-population-decline-first-time-since-1988-report-covid-home-working