Earl Aelfheah

You could apply nearly all of those 10 items listed as reasons not to increase road capacity. The one I find most questionable however, is the idea that making it as easy as possible for people to drive short distances somehow benefits the least affluent, when in reality it?s the least affluent who tend not to own or drive a car.

Interesting seeing people hooting their horns in support of the ?stop pollution? signs as they drive past. Irony isn?t dead

Really like the one from outside Spinach!

newresidentindulwich Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi, > > I'd go Kirkdale, Sydneham Hill, Lordship Lane, > East Dulwich Grove and then right up Red Post > Hill. > > Good luck! Exactly this, most direct route. Should take about 25 mins

Fair play Sephiroth.

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > East Dulwich Grove has always been horrific for > cycling - its a definite no with kids and best > avoided as an adult. > > The section between JAGS and Charter ED used to be > even worse when it was fully parked up with cars - > at least now the CPZ is in, the congestion isn't > quite so packed in, but still a horrible bit for > cycling. I did see something in James McAsh's > newsletter re a feasibility for a cycle lane so > that would make a massive difference on there if > it was possible. Further round Village Way just > has speeding cars now its quite wide and empty and > then it gets worse up to Herne Hill. > > These days I tend to avoid the whole thing by > going round the back of Trossachs / Hillsboro and > then down Calton, through the village and up > Burbage / Stradella. Its a less direct route but > probably indicative of the levels of detours > cyclists routinely make to try to stay safer > because of the huge volume of vehicles on our > roads and the poor driving that exists. That > hasn't changed, but at least now there are some > safer alternatives, whereas previously i could > face head on traffic on either East Dulwich Grove > or Calton Avenue! We need more of them to be > properly joined up to create a safe network of > routes though. This is spot on. A cycle lane connecting ED to Herne Hill and then via Railton LTN to Brixton tube would be great.

Sorry to hear that. Thanks for the heads up

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ah the good old NTV > > (Never the Vale) Ridiculously, I can't remember ever having had a drink in the Vale / Cherry Tree.

The government seem unassailable (bizarrely to me, but there you go). It would be a mistake however to think that things can't very quickly change in politics. It's a weird time. At the moment people want to give the government the benefit of the doubt as we're in the middle of a pandemic. Once we come out the other side things might change, but who really knows. I feel like it's more Labour losing at the moment than Johnson winning.

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don?t know, rah > > In time, I think yesterday will be seen as > beginning of the end for Johnson Gawd I hope so

Otto2 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi rahrahrah - > > Overall, the LTN measures are overwhelmingly > supported. Each measure is broken down into > answers and some are less supported, but, for the > most part, a majority in favour. The report also > breaks down comments giving the percentages that > responded in worries to specific issues. It also > distinguishes between those in zone a, b, and c, > borders, and "others" as far as responses which > makes it an interesting read overall. > > If you are on a laptop, the link to the phase 3 > report is in the right column, on a phone it is > further down the page. > > https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/i > mproving-our-streets/live-projects/our-healthy-str > eets/our-healthy-streets-dulwich Thanks, that's really helpful

Tilt Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The sad thing is I desperately want to fight the > climate crisis but putting in schemes like this > with no consultation that are so divisive only > alienates the people that we need to take along > with us. Big failure by whoever thinks this is a > good idea. I agree the way this has been implemented without baselining and collecting / publishing proper data is a massive problem. I think this was in part the result of Central Government making funding available for such schemes to be bought forward contingent on moving quickly.

Otto2 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Here's a link to the results of the phase 3 > consultation: > > https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/i > mproving-our-streets/live-projects/our-healthy-str > eets/our-healthy-streets-dulwich I'm struggling to work out the various documents here. Does it suggest that most people are supportive?

Droid Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You have made the same point several times. It's > beyond boring. > > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > 164 pages? You?re forgetting about the other 10 > or > > more threads 😂 I am boring. But at least I'm not gratuitously rude

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Along with reopening court/ village allow calton > to connect with village via gilkes place. This > would simplify that junction. So reversing the LTN and opening up previously closed streets?

?agree it will make no difference to Johnson?s popularity. A lot of people have fully bought in to the ?bumbling Boris? schtick and don?t seem to be able to get enough of it.

It?s pretty clear to me that the government made a series of catastrophic mistakes. The only question in my mind is whether or not they?re forgivable under the circumstances. What is clear is that the top team we?re pretty dysfunctional at a time of crisis. It?s mad that Johnson burnt so much political capital on saving Cummings at the time of Barnard Castle.

164 pages? You?re forgetting about the other 10 or more threads 😂

Some ?Classic Dom? today. Apparently Hat Mancock is incompetent! Does anyone believe it?

That said, 5 miles on a bike is a lot quicker than the bus.

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you have a 5 mile plus work commute what is > more likely? a switch to bike or a switch to > bus/train? or a flexible mix? Roads without cars > should become bus and bike lanes. buses should > take us to the station entrance. small things that > make the changes more likely to be maintained. Yeah, agree with all this. More 'last mile' options too, such as electric hire bikes and scooters.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rahrahrah - number of car journeys or number of > vehicle journeys - is there really a benefit if I > get something delivered rather than driving to get > it? > > I get the behavioural point, but still think that > it?s critical to calculate miles driven, not just > number of journeys. That?s important for the > pollution / emissions point - I get that it > doesn?t address active travel considerations. > Measurements of the two things could usefully be > considered separately, I think. You can only do a > proper balancing act once you know exactly what > you are dealing with. I think there is probably an initial, small reduction in vehicle journeys as a result of modal shift which increases over time as a result of behaviour change. This seems to be what most studies suggests happens generally, at least in most cases (possibly not in any one specific case of course). Emissions are more complicated. Slow moving traffic may increase pollution (although there is a stop start nature of London driving regardless). The bigger issue I guess, is about where the pollution goes - is it more concentrated on main road than it ever was? People have strong views on this, but little data from what I can tell.

I would be genuinely surprised if the reduction in road capacity hasn't lead to a reduction (at least to some extent) in the number of car journeys. I know that's not the only consideration, but on the narrow point about behaviour change - it's pretty clear to me that there has been some degree of 'modal shift'. This is important because, that first small change in behaviour is very difficult and tends to have a momentum that builds on itself.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But rahrahrah, > > Surely even you must concede that an awful lot of > people are getting caught in the crosshairs of > this so called steady, incremental change. Indeed, > they are being punished, accused of being lazy and > entitled and simply not caring. > > Your tone has been pretty consistent all along but > others seem all too ready to generally trash > objections and those objecting, and seem incapable > of acknowledging the flaws in the current state of > affairs. Revolutions do not always work, the > results can be very different from those envisaged > by the 'revolutionaries' and not always for the > better either. I'd really like to see some of the > zealotry and wish lists replaced with an effort to > really address practical realities and the detail. There are definitely problems with how some of these changes have been implemented. I'm sure there will be adjustments and that's probably right. My own view is that I'm broadly in favour of LTNs in principle - whilst I accept that any individual scheme may have issues and that these should be reviewed and changes made where there is evidence that they're not working. There is lots of hyperbole and name calling in the debate unfortunately and that's clearly not helpful. Twitter is unbelievable. It comes from all quarters of course, but I have to say (I know you'd expect me to say this), that there are some particularly nasty insults and accusations being thrown about by those who are anti any kind of road changes. I mean, I guess that's just the internet unfortunately.

diable rouge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Worth remembering that at the start of the > pandemic we were told that 20,000 deaths would be > ''a good outcome'', so there's every right for > people to question why we ended up with 110k more. > > It's no coincidence that this Gov is avoiding a > public enquiry, as it's fairly obvious where the > blame for a large proportion of those extra deaths > lie, the repeated mistake of late lockdowns. > Whereas the success of the vaccine is a collective > effort where the majority of the plaudits should > go to science and the NHS, the reason for the late > lockdowns stops at No 10's door. > Let's see if Dominic Cummings is true to his word > when he's interviewed by MPs later this month, and > spills the beans as to how those late lockdown > decisions came about... Apparently the success of the vaccine rollout (specifically, the UK getting ahead on ordering doses) is partly down to the 2011 film 'Contagion' https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n421