heartblock

Labour have avoided LTNs as a 'policy' during the run up. I think they are worried about the fact that they don't reduce pollution or traffic on any measure. They keep them because Labour is generally voted in by relatively wealthy people in this area and in less wealthy areas the turn-out is low. As the expensive housing is within LTNs especially in GG and ED wards then taking them out will effect LP support. Sadly if you live in low rental or less well off area you are less likely to vote. LP is a sad shadow of it's previous campaigning past.

I think the stationary traffic every morning is the 'conflict' for the 37 bus...I liked the days it went down Melbourne Grove - a perfect transport link. Maybe Melbourne should be a bus route again - take out all street parking and divert the bus down there to avoid the congested traffic on ED Grove. School route served also.

Oh the gift that keeps giving...rude and wrong at the same time. "Areas around the main stations only reach a PTAL 3"

As is the car storage LTN roads of Calton, Court and Melbourne.

Stephen Edwards, the chief executive of Living Streets, said: ?Nobody wants to vote for dangerous roads, air pollution and rat running. The government?s own evidence shows that there is overwhelming support for traffic reduction and space being reallocated to people walking, wheeling and cycling.? ?Of course, if low-traffic schemes aren?t working, authorities should be working with residents to find other ways to reduce car dominance and prioritise people.?

""PTAL is a measure of accessibility used by TfL based on distance and frequency of public transport. The areas with a high level of public transport accessibility usually score 5, 6a or 6b on the PTAL scale, whilst areas with very low levels of public transport accessibility will score 0, 1a or 1b. The Dulwich area has a low level of public transport accessibility. Areas around the main stations only reach a PTAL 3 and The Village a PTAL 2 whilst the main commercial area around East Dulwich has a PTAL 3. Other parts of Dulwich, particularly those where schools are located have a level 2 of accessibility translating into a higher use of car and coach for pupils outside of Dulwich. This is confirmed also by more general DfT accessibility statistics which show that, in general the area has a lower public transport accessibility level than the remainder of Southwark whilst by car it tends to be on par with the other parts of the borough or somewhat higher for hospitals, particularly due to the proximity of Dulwich Community Hospital". Southwark Council - Dulwich Area Traffic Management Study Final Report April 2018 London Borough of Southwark 23130501

We should occupy the land and free it for the people of East Dulwich.

That isn't what the LibDems said at all... they don't think the current LTNs reduce pollution or traffic on polluted roads, they want to bring in policy with residential support and they have discussed and explained these policies. Nowhere have they said they want to make driving easier or increase car use. So please keep to the thread discussing LTNs and stop putting words in others mouths. Now - back to LTNs - has anyone seen March/April traffic and pollution data for EDGrove?

4 at a station... great, let's dig out the Champers. You know 4 is pretty poor for London, most of Brixton is 6. But you know ..... yea!

PTAL doesn't rise above 3 until one gets to Herne Hill or Peckham - 6 is the best and parts of Dulwich and ED barely get to 1 or 2.

PTAL in this area is already one of the worse in London. No 40 was a great route to LB and Guys Hospital.

I wish they would leave it to go a bit wild...good for widelife.

Framing us as climate-change denying, polluting, haters of walking/cycling, anti-green policy and petrol-heads is far easier than defending a failed project and actually engaging one?s brain to consider global impact. Of course when they are faced by WHO clean air and anti-pollution campaigner and woman of the year award Rosumund Kissi-Debra, who actively campaigns against LTNs on the same basis as anti-LTN campaigners in ED and Dulwich the gaslighting is exposed for all to see. I feel the same about the 37 bus, I usually walk to HH station, but used to occasionally catch the 37 before the 5xLTNs driving congestion into EDG - but no longer. I?m lucky to be fairly mobile, but if I couldn?t walk to HH my bus journey on the 37 would take a long, long time in congested traffic now.

More people use buses than cycle and a huge amount of the slow moving traffic on Croxted and EDG that reduces the bus service efficiency is due to journeys that start outside the borough, as parents drive children to schools with very wide catchment areas. In this part of the borough PTAL is low. This is why LTNs Do Not reduce polllution or traffic in this area and the plan was badly mismanaged and misjudged. The effort should have been thrown into increasing buses, increasing cycle lanes and making private schools put on more smaller school buses that collect more children across a wider area. Yes..a few roads are enjoying less cars on their road, but at the expense of others health, environment and ability to live on a peaceful, safe road. Very, very selfish and green washing instead of making any real environmental impact.

Yes maybe Southwark buys that land and gifts it to the residents of East Dulwich to replace Greendale land that we currently use to play football, volleyball etc. play with the kids and use for recreation...which will disappear soon. Or half for recreation and half a wildlife area. I?m bored of private schools in this area - creating traffic mayhem and owning huge swathes of green space. The residents get a raw deal.

Parakeets none..but watch them for a while...intelligent, acrobatic, sociable and all those attributes make it difficult to discourage but interesting to watch. Although they can?t be bothered with niger seed feeders, so goldfinches are left alone. Tree is beautiful and bird song link great! Saw and heard a greenfinch on Greendale...haven?t seen one for years.

https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/its-for-your-own-good-lambeth-councillor-battles-with-anti-ltn-crowd-at-herne-hill-hustings/

Ha ha report in Southwark news.. At one point, trying to quell a baying, pro-LTN contingent, Labour?s Herne Hill Councillor, and Deputy Lambeth Mayor Pauline George, said: ?It?s for your own good! Climate emergency people! Your happiness is our joy!?. Parts of Herne Hill are run by Southwark but a large part is run by Lambeth Council. Liberal Democrat candidate for Dulwich Village, Richard Wingfield said her words ?sent a chill down my spine? adding: ?It?s not for the council to tell you how to live your lives.?

You should watch the Herne Hill Hustings.. it covers Dulwich issues and Lambeth border. The arrogance of the Lambeth LP candidate and the obfuscation and 'telling the audience that Southwark Labour knows best' from the Southwark LP candidate was painful for me as a life-long LP supporter. Green Southwark guy seemed to listen and respond well. The sound is a bit mad at the beginning but settles down.

?When we knock on doors, we?re not there to talk about Downing Street. We talk about potholes in their street. The street lights, the bins. Ultimately, it?s a tired, out-of touch Labour council,? Oh sorry...that's Bury not East Dulwich and DV!

LP has help every local election from Momentum who come in en masse from other local areas to help canvas/leaflet. Only one LP Goose Green councillor has ever knocked on my door. Councillors in office have protected time off.... candidates standing who are school teachers, charity workers and risk managers do not. Don't knock people who stand for office and care about community - whatever party they are standing for, it is a public service and should be applauded.

Exactly!

The issue with the current ?experiment? initiated under Covid rules is that it creates areas of High Traffic Neighbourhoods as well as LTNs. Traffic hasn?t evaporated, hence the overall rise along ED Grove - despite a drop in traffic across London of about 11% not related to any LTN implementation. A plan to reduce car use across the area would be great - proper school coach provision for schools with a wide catchment area, local buses, utilising ALL roads for public transport and a walking, cycling network. If you all recall...some of these LTN fan-boys and girls, were the same people who objected to buses on their road. The P4 and 37 were both rerouted due to pressure from those who have been gifted closed roads by some weird algorithm that has nothing to do with inequality, the most polluted roads or the roads with the highest pedestrian use. It?s never been about reducing car use...it?s all been about having one?s road gated from other people to use and one?s personal residence sitting within a quiet road.

Indeed Bic..but you will be told it's your 'perception' and 'you have already made up your mind' and that you are not listening to 'facts'. In reality, those in power can publish 'facts' that are manipulated data. As Rockets points out the ED Central figure runs around 12,000 until the blip after the CH LTN - so why use a figure of 15,000 that is an outlier across 4 years. The only reason is manipulating data to 'prove' an intervention has a positive effect. But.... there is no validity in this data.

I can't speak for Rockets, but data turned into statistical analysis is always manipulated, my question is why use a baseline that is post -LTN implementation rather than pre? If LTNs work and reduce traffic, congestion at peak times and pollution I'm all for them, but I have found no convincing research and locally have witnessed the opposite effect.