alice

off his trolley

So boohoo you say the majority of ltns are in the poorer areas? So what! Dulwich KTNs are certainly not. So you?d support the removal of Dulwich LTNs then?

Do you think a lifetime labour voter would shift to Tory Bailey over ltns? It was a desperate move for a loser. But locally I won?t be voting Labour again. They have betrayed the people they stand for. What happened to Fairer Futures for all? It?s not LTNs as a principle but where they were placed in Dulwich and who benefited that was the breaking point.

Oh i missed that. is there anyone who can give some feedback please?

From initial post on Nextdoor not verbatim

If a person gets out of their seat to go to front of bus to tell exuberant fans to ?calm down? I think that?s confrontational. But I do get it that others see the situation differently.

Maybe avoid confrontation would be good advice

Everybody knows the Dulwich LTNs are unfair. They place the burden of displaced traffic in the roads least able to carry it because of bus routes.

weren't our great great grandparents dead by 50?

Not sure if those beds should be prioritised.

?3000 for an unpublicised event?!

socialrent %total builds built tower hamlets 1204 14% lewisham 508 11% greenwich 861 15% Southwark 84 1% Southwarks social rent building is abysmal [ this is 2014/17] something like 4000 empty homes anyone got more recent data.

Perhaps then the bus stop could be moved temporarily to the picture house. There?s a bay there to wait.

Rah3 when you search for increasingly smaller details to be ?proved? correct or otherwise you are missing what?s important about the discussion. And that is that the Location of the Dulwich LTNs is faulty. Everything stems from that fact.

There are some narrow streets to the northeast of peckhamrd where cars could not pass each other without pulling in etc some of these are now LTNs. And it?s made a difference. but DV has wide streets together with many sports grounds and a park but very little pt so not the right place at all for LTNs.

Exactly these LTN spaces are tiny so unless you want to cycle in circles they are useless. Just serve as Dulwich?s villagey illusion.

The long and expensive redesign of that junction increased the problems there. Which suited some who always wanted a more 'villagey' suburb. Unfortunately because of the local geography, parks, golf course, sports grounds, private playing fields The effects of that small closure had knock on effects that spread like ripples on a stormy lake, affecting many many more people than benefited. Simple solutions say calton using gilkes to exit onto Dulwich village thus simplifying the village junction, Allowing P4 to use court lane for faster transit nearer more people, Coaches and parents having drop off points with freshair walk to school, having actual bike lanes, banning on road parking etc etc

doesnt her mum live on calton? when the review comes we need people involved with a fresh objective eye.

There is nothing wrong with the principle of LTNs. It is the location of their implementation in Dulwich which is at fault.

I was blocked for counting the number of cyclists in one of their pro photos.

They block you.

The only reason for removing all Dulwich LTNs is that tweaking will not work. It needs a fresh eye and approach. Perhaps not centring on that Village Junction. R3 Your language is becoming more emotive.

Maybe you were in the hall of mirrors

Loving the longer grass

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mellor was the story - but I don't think it was > ever a real thing - an concoction by Max Clifford > is my recollection not untrue. I can remember seeing the photo