ab29

Of course it is catering to some narrow local interests. We have to get rid of these corrupted, good for nothing councilors in May. I hope One Dulwich will start information campaign soon so more people are aware of the council's doings. I have already started mine, talking to friends and neighbours and explaining why they should not vote labour in the next local elections.

Heartblock, I've bee asking myself the same question - why on earth would anyone want to keep a scheme that is not only unpopular but harmful to many people? Has council, councilors and labour party been promised support/money for keeping it in place?

Anything but arrogance and patronising tone of rahrahrah, dulwich central and northern monkey. Thanks but no.

Unfortunately yes, especially for those of us that live on the boundary roads Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Every day is GroundHog day!!! ;-)

Exactly that. Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How dare they....how dare they walk to and stand > in a road closed for the supposed benefit of > "everyone". How dare they momentarily impede the > route of cyclists. How dare they force cyclists to > have to deviate from their entitled path. > > The protestors must have forgotten that the > junction is for exclusive use of cyclists only and > that everyone needs to get out of their way. > > Honestly......this is really exposing some painful > home truths about the myopic attitude of many on > the pro-LTN lobby. > > Rahx3 is no doubt aware that when the "Party in > the Square" takes place that the organisers > physically barrier some of the gaps between the > planters on Calton to protect the pedestrians from > cyclists. > > Maybe the issue at the heart of this is that far > more people turned up to this anti-LTN protest > than have ever turn up for any of the "Party in > the Squares".

P3girl: let us know here about any future protests pls.

Aww, poor families deprived of their cappuccinos on the Labour Square of Shame - what a tragedy. In a meantime, families living on the boundary roads are choking on the extra fumes - pity the idiots who closed the roads don't give a damn about them. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yep, a small number of idiots blocking the right > turn for cyclists with their bags and placards. > > ?Open the roads? they say, whilst obstructing > their use for the many families passing through. > 🤦‍♂️

And then they close the roads and tell people to use public transport more - it is beyond absurd.

"The Labour square of shame" it should say I think. I used to go to Dulwich Village all the time - not anymore. The closed roads and those b****y planters are symbols of sheer injustice to me and so I stopped going there altogether. My elderly neighbour told me that unless she manages her walk first thing in the morning she doesn?t go outside at all these days. Increase in traffic, cyclists, skaters, electric bikes and so on - there is no space for someone who simply wants to walk anymore. Southwark council is obsessed with cycling ? why not encourage people to walk more to start with? It?s cheap and pretty much everyone can do it. A cynic in me (who has grown to monumental proportions during the LTN shambles) tells me there is no money to be made in walking: no gear & gear repairs needed, no fancy tights, helmets etc to sell - so why would councillours and their friends & family bother with walking? There is nothing Southwark Council did to encourage walking. I was on my way to Cancer Centre via Newcomen Rd the other day ? as you get closer, the pavements are so narrow, uneven and damaged that an able person needs to pay attention not to trip over; people in wheelchair or elderly have no chance. At the same time the cycle lane is all nice and smooth (of course). Hundreds of examples like this across the borough. There is nothing the local labour councillors Andy Simmons and Catherine Rose did to encourage walking or in fact to help the local people in any way. E.g we have been asking for years to change the pedestrian lights around Wood Vale ? it takes 5-7 minutes to cross both parts of the road and while waiting, you are stuck with fumes, dirt and noise. Nothing has been done to change this. We need a real information campaign before the next local election so detached from reality lunatics like Richard Leeming are voted out.

I talked to friends, family, acquaintances, neighbours - not a single person has given up driving or is planning to do so. People allow longer time for their driving, they are using different routes etc ?they are angry, disappointed, worried, pissed off - not single one of them has any intention to change their driving habits. On the contrary. ?Why would I care? if fewer people drive or not is a typical response ? and I?ve been asking myself the same question since the so-called LTN extravaganza started. The only thing that the LTN has achieved so far is to push more air pollution, dirt and noise to already noisy and polluted roads like Lordship Lane or East Dulwich Grove. Why on earth would I care? No one cares about me.

"A not-really-needed reminder that car/other vehicle use causes congestion and pollution" - what does it actually mean? That the so-called LTN brought more air pollution, dirt and noise to already dirty and polluted roads?

"LTNs discourage car use" - how?

Help end road closures in Dulwich - contribute if you can: https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-end-road-closures-in-dulwich?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=p_cp%20share-sheet&fbclid=IwAR2GgiqBx3fqhrI4AvZ3E-mRuTE_kjTWUM8rbXkLAUco-EDO-olAvf2CLno

Hear, hear! first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > malumbu, stop it!

Because it doesn't support so-called LTN?

Would not put anything past Southwark council in their attempts to keep this vanity project alive. legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just looking t this month?s forward plan. It?s > still showing a decision on the Dulwich > experimental measures as due in September 2021. > There?s also a new item called ?Determination of > Objections? in relation to the measures, described > as ? Consider objections made during statutory > consultation for Dulwich Streetspace review > measures?, due in November 2021. > > See > https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgListPlanItems > .aspx?PlanId=674 > > Not quite sure how the two timeframes fit > together. Surely the Council consider the > objections before making the decision? It could be > a reference to anticipated objections made after/ > in response to the September decision? But that?s > not how it is worded?

The arrogance of people who have no idea what it means to live on a main road and how this has worsened post LTN and yet they feel entitled to question others experience - unparalelled.

Yes, it is rather scary how this has become some sort of quasi-religion for some and how an ordinary person is completely overlooked in all of this pro-LTN self-righteousness..

They should also redirect nr 40 back to London Bridge, as it was before.

Very accurate observations in the article by Paul Wheeler written back in February(someone posted it here once I think). https://www.onlondon.co.uk/paul-wheeler-why-londons-road-wars-are-tearing-labour-apart/

"if you block a stream in one place, it will find the next easiest way" - precisely: you close a road and the traffic will go through the next available one. The only thing that this scheme has achieved so far is that it has made lives of thousands of people on the boundary roads much worst and has divided the community in a way that even Brexit didn't.

Sure - who cares about people when you have Labour-made, magical data showing fall in traffic while at the same time buses are stuck in said traffic for much longer now.

In fact, this is one of the most disturbing aspects of it all - that some people are perfectly happy to sacrifice others' health and wellbeing in the name of some sort of idee fixe.

Lordship Lane did not see fall in traffic. Unless you have lived on LL long enough to be able to compare the before and after, you are indulging in fantasy while in reality people have to put up with consequences of this ridiculous experiment. Go to LL, knock on peoples doors, ask in the shops - you will see what people really think, northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > With the exception of East Dulwich Grove all those > streets saw falls in traffic post LTN. > > The East Dulwich Grove data needs more work and > more monitoring as have seen analysis showing that > its possible that the amount of traffic between MG > and Townley actually fell since the last > monitoring. More detailed monitoring needed on > EDG to understand what is happening. > > > > heartblock Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Healthy streets as dictated by LCC and a few > key > > stakeholders.. but not residents of Croxted, > Vale, > > Grove or Lane.. but you know, if you are in you > > are in....and if you are not in the 'in crowd' > > then you deserve traffic and > pollution...meanwhile > > let's sell of any Council Housing in 'posh' > areas > > and build on the green spaces on those poorer > > estates.....

Good point Penguin, although with this level of overzealousness - which usually means the reason has already departed - you are unlikely to get a sensible reply... Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We should probably ignore the contribution local > car journeys make to the climate crisis as they?re > not the *only* contributor. > > No no, we must focus only on the use of private > vehicles locally, solve that and climate change is > history. > > Driving polluting vehicles is the single biggest > cause, contributing to around half of the air > pollution in London > > And of course we all know that it is private > vehicles (which must all now meet the ULEZ, or at > least in autumn) driving locally which are the > aforesaid polluting vehicles, not the vast number > of commercial diesel vehicles, including still a > very significant part of the bus fleet.