ab29

I would also add an increase in noise level - as the traffic is now mostly stationary (and it will get worse when the lockdown restrictions are eased) there is this never-ending honking coming from angry drivers and coming to a screeching halt noise - started happening a lot after so-called LTN was introduced. Not to mention screaming, shouting and swearing coming from frustrated drivers, cyclists, pedestrians etc.

So I'm sure you understand the frustration of residents living on the already busy roads like Lordship Lane that have to now deal with much higher volumes of traffic (= more noise and air pollution) and you wouldn't oppose reopening Melbourne Grove - would you? EDguy89 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm not a homeowner, I don't have a garden, I > don't own a car, and I don't cycle. > > I live on Melbourne Grove, and the rhetoric > regarding people who live on these streets on the > forum is utterly insane. > > "just car parks for the rich" - You do know there > is a council housing estate right on Melbourne > Grove, right? > > "I haven't seen a single child playing on closed > off Melbourne Grove" - And why would you? Bikes, > motor bikes, and cars still make use of the road. > I've got a child, and despite not owning a garden, > I wouldn't let them go and play on the road. > However, you would be happy to know that a local > group of kids use the corner of Melbourne and > Chesterfield frequently for skateboarding. > > I get that LTNs are such a massively charged > subject, and a lot of people get very passionate > about it. At least with Melbourne Grove (I can't > speak for other roads), I'd like to see less > assumptions being made about the sort of people > living on these streets. You must remember that > the majority of people are just living their lives > and aren't as rich as imagined.

Excellent - donated :) Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ab29 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > What is the plan - to install some monitoring > on > > the affected roads? > > > > Metallic Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > > > > https://www.gofundme.com/f/east-dulwich-community- > > > > > > > > > clean-air?utm_campaign=p_cf+share-flow-1&utm_mediu > > > > > > m=social&utm_source=twitter > > > > > > Everyone who lives here, works here, children > > who > > > walk to school here, we all need air quality > > > monitoring!! The Council are not assessing > it, > > > yet all we see are the traffic jams and fumes > > > caused by displaced vehicles, with the > > residents > > > of LTNs sitting pretty whilst the rest choke. > > Yes it is the plan

What is the plan - to install some monitoring on the affected roads? Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > https://www.gofundme.com/f/east-dulwich-community- > clean-air?utm_campaign=p_cf+share-flow-1&utm_mediu > m=social&utm_source=twitter > > Everyone who lives here, works here, children who > walk to school here, we all need air quality > monitoring!! The Council are not assessing it, > yet all we see are the traffic jams and fumes > caused by displaced vehicles, with the residents > of LTNs sitting pretty whilst the rest choke.

The traffic has been much worse since the school reopened and it will get worse when the lockdown restriction are lifted - due the so-called LTNs.

DulvilleRes Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Clearly there are a lot of strong feelings > generated by the road closures. > > Something not to lose sight of is that those in > favour of them aren't necessarily a vocal minority > - I've seen no data that backs that assertion up. > I personally am strongly in favour of them exactly > as they are - they have in my view vastly improved > quality of life in Dulwich Village. I love the > plaza, and my kids love the fact that it looks > like at last the community is starting to do > something serious about the dominance of car > culture. This is a view reflected by a lot of > people I know. But I wouldn't extrapolate that > perception into some kind of assertion one way or > another as to what the majority view is. How anyone can enjoy this knowing that other peoples' lives have been very badly affected is beyond me.

Interesting read. https://www.onlondon.co.uk/paul-wheeler-why-londons-road-wars-are-tearing-labour-apart/

15 more months of this?? :( Slarti, who are the 2 councillors obsessed with this new vanity project (Plaza)?

"That's not to say that people living on main roads should have to put up with poor quality air. Of course not. We must improve air quality everywhere, but especially where there are vulnerable people (children etc)" - by introducing the so-called LTN you (=Southwark council) have done exactly the opposite to improving air quality or noise pollution. You have closed the roads that were never very busy like Calton Av., which helped to ease the traffic on very busy roads like Lordship Lane and sentenced residents living on these busy roads to much higher level of pollution and noise. "We must improve air quality everywhere" - how are you planning to improve air quality on Lordship Lane and other roads that are now taking the excess of traffic - and when?

Thank you for the link Concerned. This is a petition asking for a control over what councils are doing regarding the road closures. Concerned2021 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/550887

Excellent idea heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Maybe Southwark could remove the current LTNs and > make sections of the boundary roads LTNs and then > see how attitudes change. > > Calton and Court are nice and wide and could > easily take a bus, especially if not used as an > overflow car park for the 2nd or 3rd household > vehicle. Don?t worry the traffic will apparently > disappear.......

'Giving it more time'?? In what kind or parallel universe some of you live in? Oh I see - sitting in your quiet house on the recently closed road, not giving a damn about anyone else! Sorry Legal, I know this is exactly the language you want to avoid here but I find it absolutely infuriating - being directly affected by the b****y closures an yet being told by the few know-it-all again and again that this is not true! @Otto: why do you think it is ok to treat me and thousands of others like second class citizens and treat us with extra pollution and noise?? What would you do if your home/road was affected - would you sit there quietly, pondering philosophically on the fact that it may or may not get better in few years time? No one ever asked me what I think about the planning closures or how my life has been affected by it. Did the consultation contain questions such us 'Are you happy with the traffic to be much worst on your road in the next few years and perhaps never improve?' - no, no one asked that. You can close a road only if you have a spare, empty one where you can re-direct the existing traffic, otherwise is just an inhumane experimenting on living organism. Totally agree with what Concerned wrote above; I work in one of the nearby hospitals and we've been discussing the so-called LTNs a lot - people are worried.

Agree - Rockets is anything but aggressive; in fact, I don't know where he finds patience to keep replying (politely) to some individuals here ;) Bicknell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > sorry you feel that way Se22 and @Otto2. i dont > think Rockets is doing anything diffrent from > anyone on this thread - listens, and replies, > puts forward other suggestions. basically > southwark has set us up to argue. thats why i > think the next stage has got to be proper > consultation. southwark said they would announce > teh rreview in february. anyone know whats > happening?

I agree - it is really shocking that all of this is done by Labour. Have voted for them in the past but will never do so again - I would rather not vote at all. Rockets, you are right saying that 'you ae being told by a Labour councillor that your daily experience needs to be validated by holistic monitoring and modelling' - they do not listen. Have the well-off citizens of ED promised some help to Labour party and/or Southwark Council to make them completely deaf to anyone but pro-closure lobby ?

Hear hear :) Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Clearly supporting these things leads to a sense > of humour bypass. Your list of exercise positives > is indisputable, and yet it was weight issues > which you put first "obesity" "25% of Brits > overweight" "fifth fattest country in Europe" in > your initial listing. - And it is weight reduction > through exercise which is most disputable. Whereas > 'eating less' is what most authorities place as > the most likely way to lose weight. And the only > way that road closures lead to people eating less > is if they can't get access to food because of > them. Hence my, I thought humorous, hyperbole. > > But this is clearly, for you, no laughing matter. > Sorry. I should have realised that jihad and > humour are not happy bedfellows.

"Low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) are being introduced in wealthier streets at the expense of poorer neighbouring roads". https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/low-traffic-zones-force-cars-into-streets-where-poorer-people-live-6svsbck3k

I propose to close Lordship Lane - because I live on this road and because I DON'T CARE about anyone else. Is this not the pro - closure people motto? ME ME ME and nothing else matters? rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Metallic Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Rockets Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > As Julie demonstrated as part of her > > > council-sponsored/encouraged deputation the > > goal > > > appears to be to turn Dulwich Village into > some > > > sort of inner city rural idyll for the > benefit > > of > > > a few of Southwark's wealthiest residents but > > at > > > the expense of everyone else. How dare we > stand > > in > > > the way of this noble quest!!!! > > > > Poetry readings in "Dulwich Square": There was > a > > young woman named Greer, who wanted life for > > cyclists to be freer............. > > > > But getting back to reality, our area is all > > joined together and what hits Dulwich Village > hits > > all of East Dulwich and Croxted Road, so the > > answer is to make sure these closures of any > type > > or timing, are not made permanent. It may be > the > > elections next year will be the only chance, > but > > in the meantime sign your objections to the > East > > Dulwich road closures and think about your > > children walking down those polluted streets > full > > of traffic whilst one or two skip and scoot > with > > their Instagram mummies down quiet unpolluted > > streets. > > What are you proposing in their place?

Hear hear. To everyone who doesn't understand it and suffers from a COMPLETE LACK OF EMPATHY like rahrahrah here: move in to a flat/house on Lordship Lane - and see for yourself how it feels. Would you like it on your road 24/7? And multiply this by a hundred as it is quieter now because of the lockdown. KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yeah there?s a few roads in ED that are now main > rat runs compared to previously, the problem?s > just moved to other people?s streets since the > LTNs.

There are no pros for me - I'm happy to see the bridge go but don't want to see the trees destroyed.

Local elections still taking place in May apparently - not voting Labour so they lose their monopoly on Southwark council would be a good start.

Agree with your Rockets; and this person doesn't even live in Southwark, let alone Dulwich so not sure why he/she is so active on this forum. Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @malumbu - good try, no cigar I am afraid....it's > clear all I was hoping for was a return to some > semblance of normality in relation to Covid - not > traffic levels. > > I refer you to my earlier point... > > @Malumbu > Your increasingly spiteful de-positioning of > anyone who has a view differing to your own on > this subject speaks volumes: it suggests you don't > have a valuable contribution or rational argument > for the points being raised so have descended to > name calling and accusatory finger pointing at > people you don't know anything about. A bit > childish don't you think?

Or on Lordship Lane. Or East Dulwich Grove. And many others. Bicknell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Think people on croxted road have a pretty good > idea of what the reality is @DulwichCentral

You are right - it is a separate account so had to register separately to sign the petition! All done now. Thank you :) mockingbird Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ab29. This might help. > The Southwark site seems to have two levels to log > in. One is My Southwark and it is possible that > you changed the password for that. When you are > on the petition web pages, you also need to > register and this is different to My Southwark. > So look for that first and create a sign in for it > or ask for a password reset from that link (not My > Southwark). > All very badly put together. > > Another potential problem that I can see is that > as you move from this page: > https://www.southwark.gov.uk/engagement-and-consul > tations/have-your-say/petition-scheme > by clicking on the 'create or sign a petition' > link, the pages move from being secure with the > padlock sign, to insecure with the open padlock > sign. A pc may block this so perhaps try from > another device, phone perhaps, if so.

Thank you :) I can get to the page with the petition link - at this point I'm asked to log in again - even though I started as logged in user - and that's it: can't log in. I change my password but computer says no. legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Try this: > > Go to https://www.southwark.gov.uk/ > > Click on the "Services" icon at the top right to > bring up the page showing the icons for the full > list of services > > Click on the Engagement and Consultations icon, on > the right hand side (you need to scroll down a > bit, it shows three people with a bunch of > question marks above their heads), then when you > get the pop up box, click on "All Services in > Engagement and Consultations". > > Then click on "Have Your Say". > > Then, when the new screen comes up, click on > "Petition Scheme". Scroll down the page and near > the bottom there's an embedded link saying you can > create or sign an epetition. Click on the link. > It should bring up a page with a list of petitions > (this page > http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgepetitionlistd > isplay.aspx?bcr=1). > > Hopefully that works! The website is quite > functional if you spend some time digging around > in it, clicking on random things to see what comes > up, but not particularly intuitive (for me, > anyway)...

Same here - I can't log in to sign the petition. Can log in in general but then I cannot find the petition - tried browsing using the full name, bits of the name etc but can't find it. Perhaps someone knows how to look for the petition once logged in. heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Can?t sign in to sign the petition, although I can > sign into mySouthwark... so if that is happening > to me there may be many who want to sign...who > can?t.