Earl Aelfheah

What are they doing to ?encourage active travel? by opposing any changes and offering no alternative proposals? That is one of the things they say they?re strongly in favour of.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I completely understand why OneDulwich would take > this approach to try and bring the Council to the > table. It's an approach that forces the Council > to recognise the consolidated opposition to the > current scheme, rather than enabling it to > fragment that opposition into support for various > different measures, leaving the existing scheme as > the most popular. (I've mentioned before the 1999 > Australian republic referendum). > > A discussion to try and reach a satisfactory > solution is best reached when the current, flawed > scheme is definitively off the table. > > This will at least show whether people preferred > the pre-scheme situation to the current situation, > but doesn't attempt to pre-determine the final > solution. I don?t understand this. If they have an alternative proposal, why not lay it out. Why not encourage their supporters to all take part in the consultation and say ?I support the alternative proposal put forward by ?One Dulwich?.

So explain the ?slur??

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rahx3 - yes you can leave comments for suggestions > but that has no impact on the results. The council > has, by their design of the review document, left > people with no option other than to register their > disapproval of the measure by selecting return > them to their original state. No one wants to have > to do this but they are being shoehorned into > doing so by the badly (probably deliberately so) > designed review documents. > > We have been here before and the council basically > pays lip service to the comments and suggestions > left and focuses the results on how people > registered their thoughts by the options > presented. > > I don't want the measures removed completely but > that is the only way many can effect any change > thanks to the council and their attempt to > manipulate the review. There are four options: ?Overall, what would your preference be for the future of this measure? a. Return it to the original state b. Retain it as it is c. Install a different kind of measure d. Retain the measure, but modify/ enhance it with other features If you answered c or d above, please explain briefly what you would like to see:? ?One Dulwich? could have published some alternative proposals and asked their supporters to tick option ?c? and link to it, or simply refer to it in the comments. It?s that simple. They have chosen instead to steer people towards no change / option ?a?

? The Dulwich Alliance strongly supports reducing pollution and encouraging active travel? Great, how exactly? ?By not making any changes? Oh

I?m genuinely disappointed. Despite what you might think, I could have been persuaded to support a serious, well thought out alternative to the current scheme if it encouraged active travel and a reduction in car use. The ?no change? option appears really cynical when measured against their own rhetoric.

So this is what they are supporting, just to be clear:

The consultation allows one to suggest alternatives. ?One Dulwich? could have put together an alternative proposal and encouraged their supporters to reference it in their responses. But they don?t want something different. They want everything to be left as it was. Which apparently is a way to strongly encourage active travel. Somehow?

They?re not suggesting a Borough wide approach. They?re encouraging no change.

To be precise, they?re encouraging people to tick the box for ?Return to original state?. This is despite the fact that one can suggest alternatives (for example the timed closures they previously said they favoured). It?s difficult to see how this squares with their insistence they are strongly supportive of encouraging active travel and reducing car usage.

Just seen that ?One Dulwich / Dulwich Alliance? are now asking people to support total removal of all LTNs in the current consultation. So no alternative proposals, just a blanket objection to any attempts to reduce car use and / or encourage active travel.

eastdulwichlocal99 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I really don?t know what all the fuss is about - > the roads are only busy at rush hour like they > have always been. Go down from 9:30am onwards and > it?s really quiet. Removing the LTNs won?t change > the rush hour jam one bit. > > Meanwhile it was great to see people socialising > outside the coffee shop on Melbourne Grove which > doubles as a wine bar in the evening. Similarly > the new Dulwich Square with the seated area is a > great idea. > > Encouraging less car use is a step in the right > direction, all the council need to do now is > install some proper cycling lanes to make it safer > for the cyclists which I suspect will come at some > point. I think those against need to come to terms > that the LTNs are here to stay which will be > further backed up by the consultation. I certainly think people have forgotten what it was like pre lockdown / LTN

rupert james Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And if it's pissing down with rain do not not > forget to take an umbrella while you are waiting > for the bus and walking etc. It is true that one cannot take buses if it?s raining. And imagine using an umbrella! Madness

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.