ab29

A petition has been started to fix broken postal services in Dulwich and Peckham: https://www.change.org/p/residents-of-east-dulwich-fix-the-broken-postal-service-in-east-dulwich?recruiter=false&utm_source=share_petition&utm_campaign=psf_combo_share_initial&utm_medium=whatsapp&utm_content=washarecopy_31959587_en-GB%3A7&recruited_by_id=a2190e30-7048-11ec-b471-21f7608791b2 Check your inbox as the signature needs confirming (I missed it initially).

Wholeheartedly agree with the below, being negatively impacted by the road closures. "Monitors are showing pollution has increased on main roads and as we know Lordship Lane and many other well used roads, especially A roads like the south circular, have residents who deserve consideration too, as they will be breathing in more heavily polluted air." "Those on closed road win with lowered air pollution, a house price boost and the ability to have an even better car-owning experience (car ownership on those roads is high. Those on displacement routes suffer from worsened air quality, noise pollution and a very real possibility of worsened physical and mental health. Others who do not directly benefit or lose out may be impacted by longer bus journey times etc."

James B is actually the only councillor I've ever seen or talked to. I certainly cannot imagine him sporting 'F**k Tories' Xmas jumper or anything in such bade taste, like Clr McCash recently did. Supporting LTN would be a problem though; I certainly don't think it's too late to remove it - why keep something that harms people and brings no benefits to the majority.

Lib Dems have 'traffic calming measures' in their manifesto which, after the LTN makes me want to scream and run away. Hope they will learn from the Labour mistakes. Much healthier to have a council made up of councillors from different parties instead of a shady one party state which is what Southwark is and has been for years. The utter and complete failure on the Labour councillors' side to engage with worried constituents who have been negatively impacted by the road closures, the sheer arrogance and contempt for said residents they've shown during the whole process has been spectacular and certainly made me into anti Labour for a very very long time.

As per last post by Legal: "(...) the Overview and Scrutiny Committee is interviewing Cllrs Rose and Burgess on their portfolios next week [moderngov.southwark.gov.uk] Might be worth asking some of the LD committee members to ask what plans there are to deal with air pollution on the so-called boundary roads etc - no opportunity for public questions at these committee meetings I don?t believe." For those who would like to contact them, the three Lib Dem members of the committee are: Victor Chamberlain: [email protected] Humaira Ali: [email protected] Maria Linforth-Hall: [email protected]

Thanks Legal. For those who would like to contact them, the three Lib Dem members of the committee are: Victor Chamberlain: [email protected] Humaira Ali: [email protected] Maria Linforth-Hall: [email protected]

@Rockets I agree - what primitive individuals they turn out to be.

No direct trains from Forest Hill to London Bridge till 10th of Jan due to Covid and yet the trains from ED run every 15 min - how can this be?

https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/review-of-the-year-battle-lines-drawn-over-divisive-low-traffic-neighbourhood-scheme/?fbclid=IwAR0b5tuIgbf1hwWZAHJfHfYyyS3ZkQL97DEZ42A1jEwhK3TzkZlKBKSJAHQ

This is a vicious circle - every closure will cause more traffic on other roads, the more closures the more traffic the remaining roads will have to deal with. I truly despise those b****y LTNs.

Implementing a dubious scheme and claiming impossible to prove benefits - at the expense of thousands of people - is clearly wrong. I hope it will be challanged at court and removed. And I hope all councillors who backed it up and ignored genuine concerns of those affected by it will be voted out.

What an utter and complete fraud this LTN scheme is.

Rockets, I really despair over this. " (...) the root cause of the problem is the number of journeys that are being made by car (...)" - what that got to do with road closures? People will NEVER EVER stop driving just because a road or two were closed. Based on talking to many, many people - friends, acquaintances, neighbours (for the records: I do not drive of own a car). Road tax is needed. Personally, I would also like to see ban on multiple car ownership per household (with exceptions) and ban on car journeys with a single occupant (=driver; with exceptions). Why is it so difficult for people to understand that those of us who live on already busy and polluted roads do not want more traffic, noise and pollution on our doorstep?

I no longer care about anything as along as the traffic on my stretch of Lordship Lane is back to what it was pre - LTN. See? The council has turned many of us into complete cynics. SE22_2020er Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How many pages of hyperbolic drivel will it take > until people actually understand that the root > cause of the problem is the number of journeys > that are being made by car and the number of cars > that we've allowed to take over our streets and > absolutely not the LTNs. > > The LTNs are a first step in redressing the awful > balance that has been set in allowing cars to take > over this city over the last 50 years. If you > think that East Dulwich Grove was a car free > panacea before the LTNs then go and get your head > tested. There were regularly tail backs from the > JAGs lights all the way back to Melbourne Grove - > and yes, even on a Saturday. I used to marvel at > how stupid people were to waste their weekends in > cars when I cycled back to Lordship Lane from > Herne Hill on a Saturday morning. > > Are you guys not fed up with the fact that every > street is lined with cars on both sides - have you > become immune to their presence or do you see them > all as some sort of contemporary street art? > > I hope that each of you have written a strongly > worded letter to each of the local schools in > Dulwich (private and state) to insist that they > STRONGLY discourage any child being driven to > school and that they need to put in rules to stop > parents driving their children to school > > I hope that each of you are campaigning for the > congestion charge in our area - hopefully not long > now after the ULEZ has been implemented. > > I hope that each of you are campaigning for an > increased number of cycle lanes - especially one > from Lordship Lane to Herne Hill. > > I don't buy the 'public transport is not good > enough' line. I've lived in 15 countries around > the world over the last 50 years and the public > transport we have here in London is amongst the > best. Here alone in Dulwich we have buses to each > of the main rail terminals, buses to tube > stations, a train line directly into one of the > major UK train terminals. If my 80 year old > parents can cycle here in London then a damn sight > more of the rest of you can and should. > > The problem is pure and simply that there are too > many cars and now is the time to redress the > balance in favour of other means of transport - be > that walking, cycling, scooters, taxis, Ubers and > buses. > > ps @Alice - Pink is persuasive

What is "actually" happening is what I can see from my windows and what I see/experience while walking to Forest Hill and ED train stations. As if I was telling a hungry person that they are not hungry at all: "I am starving, I have not eaten in three days. My stomach is rumbling and I am about to faint!" "The recent data shows that you cannot possibly be hungry if the last time you ate is within the last 24hrs; therefore, you are faking it"

This my experience - living on a main road and using nr 40 and 176 during rush hours. Data presented by the council does not match reality.

Anyone saying the bus service is unaffected by LTN / improving clearly doesn't use it and probably has never done so.

@march46 stop reading it then; or move in to East Dulwich Grove or LL and you will change your mind. This truly is the age of 'me' - and nothing else matters.

What I see from my windows is a traffic several times worst than what we had here before the LTN. No amount of magic data from the council and refusal to accept the reality from pro LTN crowd can alter it.

Sure, how easy to come up with pro LTN stats while sitting in a comfy chair in a quiet house on a recently closed road. Entirely different perspective when living on a boundery road where all your traffic is now redirected. Just because you don't see something anymore it doesn't mean it stopped existing.

And what about people living on boundary roads and now treated with extra pollution, dirt and noise? Disturbing to see how pro LTN folk are happy to sacrifice others in the name of a vanity project with no shred of a real evidence that it actually works. eastdulwichhenry Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The latest data shows a further fall in > traffic. > > Across all count sites traffic has decreased by > > 12% compared to before the scheme. > > > > Of course, it will make no difference to those > > opposed, but encouraging for anyone interested > in > > the reality of what?s happening. > > Indeed. It's encouraging stuff, and fantastic that > East Dulwich is finally becoming a place that's > genuinely friendly to non-car-users.

They worry that reopening Melbourne South would dump more traffic on Esat Dulwich Grove? Why, hasn't the council's own Department of Magic trumpeted that the traffic has simply disappeared? Ergo there should be nothing to 'dump' so why the worry? legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Indeed, here?s the final report for those who > haven?t seen it > https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s1035 > 97/Report%20Determination%20of%20Objections%20Dulw > ich%20Streetspace%20Review.pdf > > Melbourne South closure being retained under a > temporary traffic order ( under officer delegated > power), apparently due to a concern that reopening > would dump more traffic on East Dulwich Grove. ( I > assume that?s an order under section 14 of the > Act, can?t really see how that?s justified under > the statutory wording but let?s wait and see the > order. > https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/secti > on/14). Not letting regulatory requirements get in > the way of a good scheme seems to have been > something of a theme so far. > > Apparently Sept data shows a continued reduction > in traffic on boundary roads? > > Updated equalities assessment suggests ?that the > groups who are car dependent because of their > protected characteristic should be assisted by the > Council to mitigate any disadvantages they may > suffer. Officers are cognisant of these groups, > however on balance the benefits of the Dulwich > Streetspace schemes outweigh the harm that these > may cause.? > > First time I?ve seen rain gardens mentioned - I > reckon susdrains are coming our way.

LTN brought nothing but more pollution, dirt and noise for people living on the main roads and has made air pollution worst by creating miles of idling traffic. It is also one of the most socially unjust scheme ever invented.

From a perspective of someone who walks and uses buses in London, there often seems to be no planning nor consideration given to how the cycle lanes will affect pedestrians and buses. Just squeeze one everywhere, no matter that it will make the traffic worst or pavements for pedestrians narrower.

Agree. Precious space completely wasted on niche activity. Priority should be given to buses and walking. Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just to throw into the arena > > BBC News - London congestion: Cycle lanes blamed > as city named most congested > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-59559 > 863