first mate

I'd love to have a comment from the local councillor on all this. Just to get insight into how they think this is justified.

This system is really loaded against those for whom smartphones and other tech is not second nature.

WOD, spot on. That is the problem. Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > womanofdulwich Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Sue, sadly we never knew when we made dashes > > whether they are dying ones. That can often be > the > > way. Slips and falls, and so it goes. > > 😢 > > Sorry to hear that. > > ..

Okay, to get back to the discussion, a number of posters do seem to agree that the school run is possibly a major contributor to congestion at times. Has "One Dulwich" or any other group come up with some useful suggestions? Does anyone know if Southwark Council have tried to do anything meaningful with schools and parents?

Agreed, my own view is it is most likely to be Isis KP, AQ or Taliban.

No need to apologise, it is a very complex situation and we know most governments on earth are capable of using the dark arts for political expediency. I was genuinely interested what you thought was going on. SpringTime Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ok I'm backing down. Done some more reading. > Probably ISIS-KP or Taliban masquerading as > ISIS-KP. Apologies.

Aside from those with mobility issues, who has said they want it to be easier to drive to the shops?

Agree with you Nigello.

SpringTime, who do you think would have caused two reported explosions in last hour? Are you suggesting it is a setup by US/UK troops to hasten exit?

Too variable in response time Nigello. Quite often it is necessary to set off to destination immediately. Plus taxi quite often does not want what could amount to one-way fare out of area. The walking/cycling PT model works if your family live very close by/ your life and work is all local or you are young with few commitments.

It is when you are in this sort of situation that going without a car becomes untenable. For last minute A&E/ mercy dashes or similar when out of town ( we don't all live close to relatives), zip cars, trains, other PT are no use at all. womanofdulwich Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Im thinking about it, but it has been for last > minute dashes that I have kept the car, rushing > off to see ill parents, needing to take them to > hospital etc. also collecting teenagers/ taking > them to A and E. etc etc. I guess there is a time > when you dont need to be around for these mercy > dashes, but the cost of a quick train/ flight to > somewhere more than an uber away is v expensive. > If you qualify for free public transport and dont > have to factor in these emergency journeys then > there is little reason to have the responsibility > of a car.

Is there any data on how many people living within each LTN own and use a car? heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As Melbourne is now an LTN, why not remove all > parking except for some disabled bays and a few > for business visitors. Then the 37 can run down > Melbourne. I?m sure the residents will support as > this will encourage a modal change for people > living down that road to not use their cars.

Good grief, that is crazy. What is the total it has cost them? tiddles Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What frustrates me is that the signage is not very > prominent and the gap between the infringement and > the issuing of the penalty- a small local business > that works in the area (dulwich village in > particular) managed to incur around 25 pcns before > realising their mistake - a gap of 5-8 weeks > before the first fines dropped thru the letterbox.

There is also the issue that many pushing LTNs also own a car. Why? rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > It is increasingly delusional to also suggest > that > > cycling is the solution to London's congestion > > problems. > > It?s delusional to think that cars are the > solution to London?s congestion problems.

I think the best answer is let's wait and see. If no difference that would be good news.

If the complete school has been up and running all year then I stand corrected. I was not aware all years and classes had been functioning earlier this year? Building work is still ongoing?

Thanks northern, apologies if I had misunderstood. Is it your view we will not see much of a difference in September then or have I misunderstood you on that score as well?

Heartblock, that is what I thought. I guess we will get a much better sense of LTN impact once schools are back in full swing. heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No Charter has not been running most of the Summer > at capacity, so the school run in September will > cause idling traffic again on ED Grove.

So, ignoring what could be construed as a deliberate attempt to get this thread lounged perhaps we can return to the subject of LTNs in the ED area. On another thread it was suggested that Charter has been running much of the summer so we should not expect much increase in traffic when schools return in September. I'm interested in views on this?

No, HP not an argument against LTNs per se but that using limited funds to routinely fix poor paving may be a better use of money than some other projects associated with LTNs, also noting that if LTNs are to work properly you need pavements that are not trip hazards, especially for the elderly and those less physically robust/mobile. hpsaucey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > first mate Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > '> Potholes in roads are less likely to cause > > pedestrians to trip and injure themselves, > isn't > > the idea of LTNs to increase walking?.' > > Yes - but the point of my comparison stands in > that its not an argument against having LTNs - > which I assumed is what you were trying to say? > > Re: > 'Glad you > > agree pavements need fixing and this is probably > a > > better use of council funds than are other > > ventures, mentioned in earlier parts of the > > thread.' > > Yes pavements need fixing but please don't use > this to misinterpret my words as saying this would > be a better use of funding than 'other ventures'. > > > > 'Fixing does not need to be part of LTN' > > planning is should be belt and braces. > Of course - but identifying problem areas would be > a good part of planning an LTN wouldn't it - > whether road or pavement. > > HP

Potholes in roads are less likely to cause pedestrians to trip and injure themselves, isn't the idea of LTNs to increase walking?. Glad you agree pavements need fixing and this is probably a better use of council funds than are other ventures, mentioned in earlier parts of the thread. Fixing does not need to be part of LTN planning is should be belt and braces.

The pavements are in a terrible state in places. No point having LTNs if areas of pavement are a trip hazard. legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I?m happy for the council to stop funding other > things that most people would consider ?nice to > have? rather than necessary at a time when by > their own admission things are tight financially. > I don?t think expressing a preference for money to > be put into food banks and schools rather than > spent on relatively high brow concerts in the > leafy part of the borough has any ?chip on > shoulder? overtones at all. Perhaps your sneering > at Daily Mail readers says more about you, > together with earlier comments about they type of > people who live in Bromley...

We have yet to see if Tell Grove and Melbourne Grove South (just behind the barrier)become drop off points for Charter in September. The layout of the roads at that point allows cars to turn quite easily. I do agree that dropping off babies and toddlers would take more time.

malumbu, stop it!

And that "no way of knowing" is part of the problem. It will be argued, as you have done, that clients will be local, so no problem. Is there really local demand for a super-creche? My guess, and it is as much a guess as yours, is that a significant proportion will be users out of area or far enough to drop off in the car.