ab29

Deleted

I don't have a car - never had one - I walk and use public transport.

Which 'surrounding roads'? Lordship Lane, South Circular, East Dulwich Grove? These are densely populated residential roads - real people actually live there (surprise surprise). LTN has dumped even more pollution, dirt and noise on these roads - it is its only achievement so far. Asset Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No Way should Court/Village open, it's so much > better for the schools and pedestrians now. > > > With roads it is a case of open them/build them > and they'll fill with cars, close them and cars go > away. simple. Once the drivers who do short > unnecessary journeys realise it's not worth it, > the surrounding roads will be clear for the people > who do need to use their cars.

Dulwich LTN must go. It is utterly wrong to dump more air pollution and dirt on some roads while others have none, not to mention that it does absolutely nothing for the overall air pollution, on the contrary.

Dulwich LTN must go - peoples' health cannot be sacrificed in the name of this ridiculous idee fixe.

'Disgusting' is the word. To close a junction and pretend it is some sort of Italian piazza, waste money on 'performances' on the said junction, being clearly told by constituents it is wrong and yet showing the same constituents a middle finger and continuing...Southwark Labour councillors have clearly departed from real world. How can they criticise Tories after something like this?

- Two-thirds (between 64% and 69%) of those living and working in all three Dulwich LTNS who answered Southwark?s survey rejected the measures by opting in each case for ?return it to the original state'. The Council is ignoring this and offering just minor tweaks to the scheme. Why? - The majority of survey respondents did not feel the scheme was achieving the Council?s aims - The Council has offered no evidence that the scheme improves air quality -Inequality: it depends where you live/work/go to school whether you benefit - The scheme still displaces traffic and pollution on to residential streets with schools and health centres - The scheme still discriminates against those with protected characteristics (especially older people and people with disabilities) - The scheme still damages the viability of local shops and businesses - The scheme still delays health care professionals, like community midwives and carers - Even though these were promised in July, the raw data and methodology are still missing, so impossible to work out the basis for Southwark?s claims

Like unicorns?

The attitude of the pro-LTN crowd here is quite remarkable - if you live on one of the main roads you should just shut up and lump it. More cars, more noise, more air pollution - nobody cares - just shut up. You cannot buy a house on a quiet street because you don't have enough money? Tough, you are a looser, a second class citizen and you can perish today for all they care. And why? Because five more people can now cycle for ten minutes longer on the closed roads! Aww - isn't this just lovely.

So wanting to ban cars is too much and over the top but wanting to close roads which causes other streets to be more congested and polluted is fine- yeah. Typical: I will not give up anything for the cause but happy to sacrifice others' health and well being.

Local elections May next year. And I would encourage everyone to also contact Grant Schapps. This is beyond parody. tiddles Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So she?s saying they weren?t going to take any > notice anyway? So why the **** was all that money > spent on a consultation?? There should be a vote > of no confidence in this lot if it was possible?

Post by DougieFreeman - re-posting it here as I think it sums things up brilliantly. And pay attention to the last sentence. "I personally don?t care whether a hundred thousand cyclists turned up all living in SE22 (or all living in Kent) for the flotilla, it?s quite frankly irrelevant as it is not in any way representative of the real world day to day normality of road use in the area. The fact is most active travel is made on foot. And in my view any measures that are put in that cause greater levels of pollution and/or congestion jeopardise the health and safety of all those making those active journeys. I don?t believe there is any validity in the notion that removing LTNs is wrong because it would be putting more cars on side streets and so anyone pushing for that must ultimately have the goal of more cars on side streets. UNLESS you also accept that the very implementation of the LTNs in the first place put more cars on side streets (LL, EDG etc are hardly bigger than the ?side streets? that have been filtered - they?re still residential roads after all). The scheme is a failure, completely unfair and should be replaced with something else entirely (with proper consultation with all residents). Cue the ?ah so you just want to go back to loads more cars on the road - you?d rather just do nothing...? brigade. No, of course not. But I don?t believe that the ideology of cyclists and the environmentally conscious should somehow trump the rights to clean air of a selection of unfortunate residents. If you cannot give clean air and quiet streets to everyone, then your scheme needs work. If you are giving wealthy residents clean air and quiet streets at the expense of a selection of (arguably less wealthy) residents then your scheme is not fit for purpose. There is simply no acceptable excuse for forcing these measures on people. Until a fair solution can be found, air pollution (as horrific as it may be) should be shared equally by all residents as it is all of our burden to bear (not just an unfortunate selection)".

The traffic on the main roads like EDG, LL, Croxted, South Circular etc has been made much worst by the so-called LTNs. You can deny it all you want - those of us who happen to live on those roads have been experiencing a massive increase in traffic after the roads were closed. Add the panicked drivers to the mix and you get a horrendous traffic like today.

Just a reminder that MONDAY 27 SEPTEMBER is the deadline for sending objections to the LTNs. Please send an email to [email protected], copying in [email protected].

No.

I also walked to a post office near Forest Hill station this morning and the South Circular was absolutely packed with hardly moving traffic. Unless there was an an incident somewhere, this is there worst I've seen; and this apparently is to get worst after ULEZ. Also, only one person in most of the cars - I wish there was a regulation that unless you have at least 2-3 people in your car, you cannot drive (with some exceptions).

One of the worst things now is that weekends are hardly better in terms of traffic than weekdays (except half term and holidays); 8am this morning and already a solid traffic on Dulwich Common.

and what do you have to say about people accusing P3girl about inciting violence - hmm? DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ab29 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > arrogant and patronising - as per usual > > > You mean like this? > > > ab29 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ------- > > not sure if those complaining about your post > actually know what 'metaphor' is.

arrogant and patronising - as per usual malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Heartblock - you have been reading too much Viz > > https://viz.fandom.com/wiki/Category:The_Modern_Pa > rents_Characters > > And another character comes to mind > > http://viz.co.uk/category/millie-tant/ although > perhaps not politically correct, apols > > Just a bit of light humour

P3girl: not sure if those complaining about your post actually know what 'metaphor' is. In a meantime, the 'Stop the road closure' sign near my place has been damaged (after being already vanalised a few times) - talking about 'inciting violence'...

Ha ha, that's a good one - well done Admin for displaying a common sense Administrator Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > To those who have flagged the previous posts, I > don't believe they mean "go to war", phrases such > as "winning the battle not the war" are common and > not encouraging actual fighting. > > Do correct me if I'm wrong P3girl, and you are > inciting violence.

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!!! ;-)