ab29

And Rockets yes, they've dug out a hole and put temporary lights in place. The traffic goes all the way to Forest Hill. Just when I thought this cannot get any worst.

@3xR: name calling means the use of offensive names - have not used any when referring to you and your posts.

As a cyclist you are at the road like EDG for 5 - 10 minutes; others have to live with it 24/7. I would love to see a reversal of this experiment - close LL, EDG, Croxted Rd etc an redirect the traffic via Calton, Court Lane and so on - and see how many LTN supporters would be left after that.

I cannot imagine that anyone who is capable of empathising can support a scheme like so-called LTN.

I was walking this morning form Horniman towards Dulwich Library and there was a solid, hardly moving traffic starting around Wood Vale. 10am on Saturday, not a weekday, not rush hours. This stretch of LL is now a complete bottleneck most of the day. Shifting traffic from richer roads to the poorer ones (usually more densely populated and more polluted) by closing roads and being very precious about it does not improve air quality. How about banning households from owning more than one car and banning ownership of SUV in London to start with - this would have much more effect and quicker.

3xRah: "It?s great that ?One Dulwich? want less pollution and more active travel - everyone does. What do they propose to achieve this? " Countless number of times people like Rockets, Legal and others have come up with many ideas but you prefer to ignore it and repeat the same things over and over again, like a mantra. So far you have done the cause no service, except reinforcing a stereotype of the know-it-all, arrogant cyclist. You have never showed any interest in those here who voice their concerns and who are badly affected by the road closures. Also - there is a new thread called 'Air pollution in East Dulwich - what can we do?'- many ideas there.

Found an article but cannot see a petition: https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/battle-to-save-peckham-green-space-with-new-council-homes-planned/

Make public transport cheap and reliable. Produce fewer cars / stop producing cars. Make people pay for using the roads. Introduce tax if a household owns more than one car - or even make it illegal (with some exceptions). Ban wood burners. And start from improving air quality for people living on the most polluted roads such as South Circular.

I am against the road closures and have been from the start. I don't own a car, use public transport and walk when I can. My situation has been made much worst after the so-called LTNs were put in place: I'm now presented with idling traffic most of the day, buses are slower and many of my walking routes are affected by displaced traffic. Several houses near me are split into flats - number of people living in those flats probably equals the entire population of Calton Avenue; the latter, already comfortable, can now enjoy even more peace and quiet while the former, so much less comfortable, have to put up with worsened living conditions - why would anyone support such a scheme? The traffic is simply pushed to other roads and so the overall air pollution is the same or even worst.

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.