alice

Never said that Melbourne Grove is ever madly thriving. my comment was a response to whoever said the LTNs increase trade in small businesses clearly it?s rubbish. Lane 8 is a mystery only sells coffee for limited time. How can it survive. Unless it?s a vanity project of sorts.

Just got a question re size thanks

doubled

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @ Alice > > Seem to be doing ok to me Ha thought someone would use that photo. It was a one day engineered thing. Want a photo today?

Ask the fading businesses in Melbourne grove. Or better still walk there. It?s dead.

And the hearts stuck on Melbourne grove with child writing how much they love them. I?ve yet to see children there. It?s dead.

Exactly. It?s not what they are it?s where Dulwich LTNs were put. And why.

Exactly. It?s not what they are it?s where Dulwich LTNs were put.

Otto2 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not really Alice - there are three different > opinions here and I know them all very well and I > am very much friends with all of them despite the > differences. > > "I know three different households on Ed Grove. > The first -- a young couple who rent a tiny flat > are very much in favour of the LTN's. The second, > a homeowner with a high value property is against > them and very active in campaigning for removal. > The third, another homeowner in a property of > lesser value than the anti-person is both for and > against and thinks they could be tweaked and > electric cars solve all etc." just that it fits in with your opinion those anti LTNs are the wealthy big car owners and the ordinary people benefit from them when the reverse is closer to the truth.

How our friends confirm our own ideas. Strange?

I tried to get a poster from fashion conscience. They didn?t have any left. Now multiply my 1 visit by the bustling crowds that some say now ?enjoy? Melbourne grove. Surely that means it?s reasonable to conclude that the length of my road would be covered in posters. Had they been available.

How easy would it be to ban the swollen SUVs from inside the north/south circulars.

Banning inroad parking in the broad avenues with off road parking. Thus limiting number of cars per household and creating safe space for bus/bike lanes.

it?s just that the antiquated designation of ?main roads? needs changing to reflect changing population density. The broadest roads with the lowest ?people per linear metre? have the most traffic restrictions.

They are gradually getting rid of them because ?everyone? has phones. Then tell us not to use phones in the street.

Ra3 you are deliberately misquoting.

Buses are even slower because of displaced traffic from our local routeless streets.

Basing dulwich ltns on one junction was always an error. It didn?t work and every time they tried to patch it - it got worse. Needs fresh eyes that link boroughs, bus routes, schools and takes account of how different population densities affect pollution.

Tinkering won?t sort it. Needs a cross borough approach. Consultation questions are farcical.

Many people spend an hour or more on those bus routes on the way to work. And you say get off because walking is faster than our public transport. Sorry it is dismissive.

That?s how I feel. Very depressing.

j. they tried retractable bollards on rye lane a few years back. ripped the chassis of a couple of cars and got shelved. All at great expense.

As Court lane has no schools, nurseries, health centres, hospitals etc there never was any justification for any closures.

It?s already been a long game with winners and losers. It needs to stop. The barriers need to come down. Other councils have taken this decision. Southwark should too.

Dkhb your logic is faulty.