northernmonkey

On the section of ED Grove between RPH and Townley I struggle to think of a house that doesn't have 3 cars on the driveway. The Dutch estate, rather than being the social housing enclave people like to claim for this argument has extensive (and free) off street parking for residents plus garages. The amount of cars parked there is massive. Then you have the section on the bend where every frontage bar one is paved over and has 2 cars on it, behind which is a mews with yet more off street parking. The houses on the right have full residents parking outside them. Not sure where this 'East Dulwich Grove low car narrative comes from really. heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As far as I know...ED Grove residents group is > unaware of this meeting and as the road with low > car ownership and an increase of 25-37% traffic > and NOx off the acceptable scales..this is a huge > injustice. > > Yet again the Council acts like a feudal > endeavour...we are just serfs...

Not me - try to get it right when you 'tell people off' regardless of your attempts at 'tongue in cheek' humour. Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DuncanW Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Demand for school places reduces catchment area > > size normally - not the other way round > > > > Some older children may travel further for > schools > > - but how many 13-15 yr old kids are being > dropped > > off by mummy in the mornings?? Most would > rather > > crawl over nails to get there, surely?? > > > > Schools alongside councils have done a lot to > try > > to counter traffic issues - most visibly, the > > school street closures that many primary > schools > > now have, but also via education and > persuasion, > > walking buses, active school travel days, > > bikeability courses, improvements to cycle > > infrastructure, greater enforcement of > infractions > > - sure they could do more still, but are you > > seriously saying you're not aware of any of > this > > stuff > > Not entirely correct for Dulwich - the > demographics skew it. Think back to 10 - 15 years > ago Dulwich (particularly East Dulwich) was > referred to as Nappy Valley as young couples were > moving in their droves to the area to start > families on the basis of the good primary schools > and (cheaper) housing stock. Now many of those > children are older and will no doubt be going to > secondary schools further afield due to the > relative lack of secondary schools. > > I have no idea how many 13-15 year olds are being > dropped off by mummy (or daddy - tsk, tsk > Northern) but the point is nor does the council as > they have no idea who and what is causing the > traffic in the area as they have never done the > proper research to find out.

I saw that police were asking for dashcam footage from anyone who may have been passing. Its very sad.

My understanding was that this was something that the traders on Melbourne Grove asked for. I'm not convinced that having a 'rival' Sat market is a good idea. It either needs to be a really different offering or on a different day.

Why would state schools possibly need a council subsidised bus service? The way places are allocated is based on distance from the school. Admittedly there are some people who get the first child into a school, then move away and continue to take their child to that school and subsequent siblings but getting to a position where that isn't socially acceptable isn't going to be a quick thing. Otherwise the distances are very small - less than 1km in most cases. Whilst the distances at secondary are further, the main issues really appear to be around primary schools so I'm not clear how a bus service would help. Some schools have set up walking busses (Goose Green did one pre covid) and they're a good idea. More could be done on that perhaps for the indi schools with a walking bus from north Dulwich train station picking up from key trains.

what a shame they're removing the barriers without permanently removing the parking outside the shops. Though for those trying the usual conspiracy theory as to timing, seems that its just that the 19th was the end of mandated social distancing so the council no longer has obligations under those provisions.

I already did that but in your enthusiasm to jump in you seem to have missed it. So there has been years of 'working with the schools' and nothing has changed. Yet again you have reverted to 'my problem is that the measures are too simplistic' - so again, what measures would actually achieve the goals without inconveniencing anyone local or causing any detours at all?

Lets stick with this for a while - how? I agree the council has all those powers. How do you apply any of them to reducing school traffic only whilst not affecting local traffic (which seems to be the complaint). I think that the school street hours on Hillsboro could be extended to cover the upper part of the junior school too. I also think that a school street on Greendale and more enforcement of the CPZ would help. But other than that i'm struggling with measures that would prevent driving to schools whilst not affecting anyone else. And yes, drawing on things with chalk is a world away from criminal damage. Next...

Sorry to hear that - i hope he is ok? Has it been reported to the council?

How much do you think it cost to remove some chalk 'love LTNs' Rockets? Because Lambeth think its cost in the region of 50k of council funds. I haven't seen a similar report from Southwark in terms of the constant replanting of planters and removing the incessant flyposting of stickers that happened repeatedly for a period of weeks but it won't be insignificant. I don't agree with damaging posters that individuals put up on private property - i saw two video clips of this late at night but it doesn't thankfully seem to have been a constant campaign. Agree there are idiots on both sides but equating some chalk with filling planters and a road with oil is falling into the false equivalence territory. As is always the case, once the independent schools break up then the traffic drops dramatically, guess both no school run and also associated staffing and other traffic, but simplifying the issue to 'stopping the schools' goes too far. Aside from anything else how would it be done within available powers? The schools have been running active travel training / have policies etc but without some actual deterrents to driving it seems that little will change.

Assume these are a one off coach for something related to Charter? It isn't ok for them to leave engines idling - have you contacted the school about this? Assume they're for a trip or a fixture or something as they obviously don't have coaches daily. Not sure that any LTN supporter would be suggesting that coaches should stop and idle - in fact know of many who have spent years discussing/ reporting the foundation schools to their coaches manager to work with them to stop this.

Ghandi probably had some words about people claiming to 'despise' an entire group of people based on one particular characteristic too... Anyway, back on topic. Monitoring data showed an overall fall on Lordship Lane. More data expected in coming weeks hopefully split out in a more detailed way.

I don't think that having an ongoing conversation with someone who claims to 'despise' an entire group of people who chose to travel in a particular way is helpful. Why despise cyclists - its the drivers going past your home which seem to be the problem! Also - if you feelings towards cyclists have reached 'despise' please seek help / counselling and I sincerely hope you don't drive a car.

Where do i want safe routes for walking - well ideally everywhere, but specifically around schools and providing alternative routes through neighborhoods. I also want safe routes for cycling. I agree there isn't much space because so much of our public space has been given over to a minority who drive over the years. We need to roll back a position where we have made driving in private vehicles the most convenient option for people within cities.

Ok - so lets assume that the ULEZ makes a huge difference to emissions. Suspending any comments on that, how would it help with creating safe routes for walking and cycling?

Also 'they' would have covered any of those things, but less rudely. Your username is 'Metallic' - my furst thought is not that you are a person made of metal! Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > northernmonkey Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > 'it' ??? > > > > The point about answering questions is an > > interesting one. > > > > Asking anyone opposed to these measures what > > measures they would support tends to result in > > some speech about equality and ensuring a > fairer > > solution for everyone but with the exception of > > 'lets have a community bus' which in and of > itself > > would be unlikely to bring significant change, > no > > actual options are ever put forward. > > > > I suspect its because there is unity in > > disagreement to the current measures, but as > soon > > as people specify what they do support then > others > > will disagree. > > "It" is because I have no idea whether you are > male, female, or indeed a monkey from the north.

How much of a difference do you really think a 'green bus on a circuit' would make. Lets assume you have 2 of them and they seat say 20 passengers. Lets also be generous and say that they take 20 single occupant vehicles off the road each. Given the area people seem to want covered (east dulwich to west dulwich) i've allowed an optimistic hour for a circuit. Thats between 40-60 cars overall removed from the roads by this. Its hardly going to result in safe walking and cycling routes. So - we've got Metallic who is suggesting reopening everywhere and putting in place a community bus (funding tbc) Spartacus - remove everything and wait for ULEZ (note even TFL thinks that 80% of cars are currently already ULEZ compliant) Anything else?

This is true - but in terms of emergency vehicles there would be access. the biggest delay nationally to emergency services is other traffic. I sometimes wonder if those of you on this thread being concerned about a queue of say 10 cars at a traffic light or any delay at all to emergency vehicles are in fact asking for much much more. Is it time to look at whether all private vehicles except blue badge holders should be banned within cities or during peak hours?

Weren't they suggesting bus gates on those permanent filters - in which case public transport, emergency vehicles (and maybe licensed taxis) would be allowed through.

'it' ??? The point about answering questions is an interesting one. Asking anyone opposed to these measures what measures they would support tends to result in some speech about equality and ensuring a fairer solution for everyone but with the exception of 'lets have a community bus' which in and of itself would be unlikely to bring significant change, no actual options are ever put forward. I suspect its because there is unity in disagreement to the current measures, but as soon as people specify what they do support then others will disagree.

Nothing like trying to put words in people's mouths there Rockets....

I don't know on the data baseline comparison - don't think they went into that level of detail but will be something to look at in what is released and understand the impact. If anything leaving the April baseline unadjusted could overstate the impact of any increases in traffic I'd have thought for May ? In terms of more general questions on do we believe the data - I'd prefer to see more months monitoring before reaching conclusions - though working up a hypothesis and then determining whether subsequent data sets reflect this is a reasonable basis for assessment. legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I?ll acknowledge the point about Tom, although I > still think it felt quite scripted. > > Do you think that when the June data comes, > they?ll then compare it with an ?adjusted? June > 2019 baseline then - or just give the new data? It > should be the former? Hopefully they?ll also give > some more info about on what basis they?ve done > the ?adjustment?. > > > northernmonkey Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > On the April point they did seem to indicate > that > > there would be more data for May and June > coming > > soon so that will be helpful to understand what > is > > a trend vs anomaly. > > > > I'd also agree that more granularity of data > would > > be helpful - I'd like to see the directional > > traffic counts rather than in total and would > > agree that weekday vs weekend would also be > > helpful. > > > > The questions were supposed to be split by area > > though - East Dulwich, then the village and > then > > champion hill so the fact that Tom of Denmark > Hill > > spoke at the end was because he was one of the > > questionners from that area. The assumption > that > > only negative views can be genuine does reflect > > your views rather than people being an obvious > > plant.

On the April point they did seem to indicate that there would be more data for May and June coming soon so that will be helpful to understand what is a trend vs anomaly. I'd also agree that more granularity of data would be helpful - I'd like to see the directional traffic counts rather than in total and would agree that weekday vs weekend would also be helpful. The questions were supposed to be split by area though - East Dulwich, then the village and then champion hill so the fact that Tom of Denmark Hill spoke at the end was because he was one of the questionners from that area. The assumption that only negative views can be genuine does reflect your views rather than people being an obvious plant.

Thank you!

Has anyone bought this- i love it though am put off by ?difficulty level -hard?