ab29

For me the problem with buses started when TfL introduced the electronic boards announcing when the next bus is due. Good idea in principle but it should be set to say something like ?next bus due in 5 min? or so instead of trying to tell the exact bus arrival, up to a minute. In a city of 8 million people (+), where things change all the time, it is an absurd to try to predict bus the next bus arrival so precise. The infuriating ?regulating the service? thingy followed, where buses stop for a few minutes at the bus stops so they fit this ?up to a minute? schedule ? the frustration and anger this causes is beyond words. Utterly impractical and unnecessary. Then the trend to make everything cyclists friendly started and many roads were halved to accommodate cycling lanes, which took space away from buses; now the so-called LTNs, pushing the traffic to the roads like Lordship Lane and making bus journeys even longer. And then TfL announces that they have to cut down bus frequency and get rid of some bus routes because people don?t use them! You make something worst and then claim it is not being used so you have to shut it down. Pure Monty Python.

Nigello, it depends on a work you do and other circumstances. If you a nurse coming home after 12 hours shift, which usually means being on your feet a lot , the last thing you want is walking through the 'leafy quietness of Melbourne Grove'. Not to mention that this 'leafy quietness' might be nowhere near your route home.

Bicknell, some people just don't care about anything but themselves - sad but true.

I am up for the fight. I sincerely hope the labour will be trashed in the next local elections - they are asking for it. It will be down to people like councillors Leeming and Newens. KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They don?t care whether the consultation > ?conclusions? are swallowed or not, anyone not > convinced and wishing to take action will have a > formidable project ahead of them to > disprove/balance the findings and they believe > no-one?s up for that.

One Dulwich leaflet sums it up really well (capitalization mine). 10 REASONS TO END ROAD CLOSURES Dulwich road closures don't work because they 1 PUSH TRAFFIC AND POLLUTION ON TO NEIGHBOURING residential STREETS where thousands of children also go to school 2 MAKE JOURNEYS LONGER, increasing our COLLECTIVE carbon emissions and contribution to climate change 3 stop emergency vehicles getting through, ENDANGERING LIVES 4 AREN'T BASED ON ANY CONSISTENT TRAFFIC & POLLUTION MONITORING DATA, area-wide plan or or equality impact assessment 5 SLOW DONW BUSES, making Dulwich's poor public transport even worst 6 DISCRIMINATE against elderly, vulnerable, disabled and mobility-impaired residents 7 THREATEN THE LIVELIHOODS of local shops, businesses, sports clubs and community groups 8 delay GPs on home visits, midwives reaching home births, community nurses and carers 9 make working parents' live harder because of unpredictable travelling times 10 BENEFIT THOSE WHO HAVE MOST AND HARM THOSE WHO HAVE LEAST

Just seen the time in the thread title!

What time?

South Circular has always been an awful road and got much worst after the so-called LTNs were introduced. Can't imagine what will happen after ULEZ.. scrawford Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As reported in the Financial Times today, TfL are > considering using the uLEZ for raising revenue. It > was pretty obvious from when this was first mooted > that this would happen eventually. This will > really reduce traffic in the area, but the South > Circular will become horrendous?.. > > TfL officials have set out several options > including a new Greater London Boundary charge for > cars driving into London. Other possible measures > involve a big expansion of the capital?s > congestion charge zone, extending it out to the > two inner London ring roads, known as the north > and south circular.

Ex: I said: ""Dulwich LTNs - and LTNs in general - are about reducing pollution or creating quiet neighbourhoods for CERTAIN people"" - "this much is certain". You said: "So... they work then?" Pushing air pollution from one street to another does not reduce the overall air pollution - and is it not what the so-called 'LTN' supporters are after? Only because YOUR STREET has been quiet it does not mean it is ok! The neighbouring roads are now getting YOUR traffic! Do you understand? You are happy while others have to suffer - is this what you want? Unless you are happy that CERTIAN people have clean air but not the others?

Ex: "Therefore, by that logic, councils should start introducing traffic reduction systems EVERYWHERE?" I can selfishly say I do not own a car and so I would be happy with closing off an entire London area to cars, especially A-roads where people have suffered long enough e.g. South Circular (except for disabled people, ambulances and so on). No one who OWNS A CAR should be lecturing people here about LTNs! "spread the pollution around a bit" - no, not "a bit" - A LOT On a day AFTER the so-called 'LTN' went live I was talking to my neighbours - we thought there was an accident in the area to cause a traffic of such monumental proportion. Rubbish comparison: "if there was a ton of rubbish flytipped on EDG, would you argue that it should be split into multiple lots of 50kg and spread around the area a bit or would you argue that we needed better rubbish prevention methods?" - I want to see the rubbish being "split into multiple lots of 50kg and spread around the area a bit" UNTIL A PROPER SYSTEM IS IN PLACE - instead of punishing residents of East Dulwich Grove. It is only fair. exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dulwich LTNs - and LTNs in general - are about > reducing pollution or creating quiet > neighbourhoods for certain people - this much is > certain. > > So... they work then? > Therefore, by that logic, councils should start > introducing traffic reduction systems EVERYWHERE? > > Perhaps by taking one lane away and replacing it > with a secure cycle lane, perhaps by putting in a > bus lane or implementing a Park & Ride or a toll > road or a residents access only road...? > > What is essentially being said is that LTNs have > pushed pollution elsewhere and from comments on > here, there appears to be two (rather binary) > choices: spread the pollution around a bit or look > at the positive outcomes and use them elsewhere to > reduce pollution there too. > > I mean, if there was a ton of rubbish flytipped on > EDG, would you argue that it should be split into > multiple lots of 50kg and spread around the area a > bit or would you argue that we needed better > rubbish prevention methods?

Dulwich LTNs - and LTNs in general - are about reducing pollution or creating quiet neighbourhoods for certain people - this much is certain.

LA, I really appreciate your work & input - and I am a guilty party here. But what are the options? I begin to see this as a divide between people who are able to empathize and those that are not . legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It?s in danger of ceasing being a discussion and > taking on the tone of the clashes taking place on > Twitter. I despair. Whatever happened to reasoned > debate, acknowledging the weaknesses in one?s own > argument and pausing for reflection? Call me old > fashioned but I find all this playground /trolling > stuff a bit of an irritant - I guess that?s the > point of it, but I can?t see how it progresses > anything. > > > ianr Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > For non-participants, where has this discussion > > got to so far?

"claiming there are too many threads" - you are absolutely right Firstmate, arrogant and selfish individuals like rahrahrah or Dulwich Central. first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It is interesting to see the various methods > adopted by some of the more extreme pro LTN > supporters- denial of available evidence, > persistent attempts to derail and obfuscate/ > trolling on threads, trying to stifle views/ > claiming there are too many threads, and now > defacing posters displayed that are objecting to > the current incarnation of LTNs. It just doesn't > feel very adult, democratic or like there is a > willingness to face the flaws and have a rethink. > > heartblock Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Yep FirstMate - the report to Southwark > includes > > an ambulance delayed by the Calton Ave hard > > closure adding time to a Cat 2 call on > Desenfans > > Rd and an inability to use Derwent Road because > of > > a hard closure to avoid heavy traffic on Grove > > Vale responding to a Cat 1. > > The report ends with a request to make changes > due > > to 'previous feedback' and wonders about an > > 'update' as 'we still seem be experiencing > delays, > > that are very concerning and leading to patient > > safety concerns' > > > > I know that my paramedic students dislike the > hard > > closures, they consider them to contribute to a > > higher risk to life.

Heartblock, was this FoI request? Are there any official stats? heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yep FirstMate - the report to Southwark includes > an ambulance delayed by the Calton Ave hard > closure adding time to a Cat 2 call on Desenfans > Rd and an inability to use Derwent Road because of > a hard closure to avoid heavy traffic on Grove > Vale responding to a Cat 1. > The report ends with a request to make changes due > to 'previous feedback' and wonders about an > 'update' as 'we still seem be experiencing delays, > that are very concerning and leading to patient > safety concerns' > > I know that my paramedic students dislike the hard > closures, they consider them to contribute to a > higher risk to life.

Same here

We lost Malumbu and got Mr Chicken instead; no rest for the wicked ;) alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mr chicken should be ignored. His poor humour > serves the weakness of his argument. I shall > rename myself 3gearalice.

Agree with Rockets - already the bikes are being left all over the place e.g. in a middle of a pavement which is a trip hazard. Blind & partially sighted society has been worrying about this.

Don't read it then. Clearly people feel very strongly about it if they want to keep going on discussing it.

I am from a minority group and as I said I do not feel offended by the slogan . I would rather see a real action on the b****y LTNs instead of a futile discussions about slogans.

I do not see this slogan as offensive - I see LTNs as offensive (damaging) to many people of various backgrounds and yet somehow many of you here failed to acknowledge / understand it. northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Feel free to keep standing by the slogan if you > like. Alternatively accept it was ill judged and > wrong and hope that the replacement poster is less > offensive?

ED girl I disagree - I see this as a smokescreen. So-called LTNs and its consequences its a problem here, not the slogan. Why have I not seen you saying 'Oh, poor people living on Lordship Lane, how awful it must be for them yo live with this additional air pollution and noise'?

So-called LTNs and its consequences is a problem here not a slogan which a totally agree with - all streets do matter (only wish the Dulwich labour councillors understood this). It's a smokescreen. northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You know that just cos someone else used it it > doesn't make it ok right? > > Is it ok to leave up posters with slogans from far > right racist groups as long as 'new ones are > coming'? > > I don't doubt that many people 'didn't think' > about it but now its been pointed out its > interesting how Dulwich Alliance have dealt with > it (ie they haven't really!)

I have no problem with the slogan 'All streets matter' - they do. Some people are trying to create problems where there are none.

The scheme has been in place for almost a year and made absolutely no difference - I see it from my windows every day. The summer in particular was hell as had to open the windows; this one looks to be even worst as people are going crazy after the lockdown. So how much longer do you think I should be in this situation DC for you to decde it is a success or a failure? Is another year acceptable according to you? Or 2? 3? I work in a nearby hospital - does this rise my stakes and cut the sentence? You may want me around if there is another wave of covid.

And yet you are happy for others to suffer. This overzealousness is scary. DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ab29 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I don't own a car and have never done so. Going > > back to my question Dulwich Central - would you > > like the displacement traffic to sit in front > of > > your home all day long? It is a simple yes or > no > > question. > > No. Which is why I support LTNs and any measures > to reduce unnecessary car journeys.