heartblock

Well if you have lived in ED for 35 years you do actually know who benefits - which is why it is so annoying that these LTNs have been placed where they have been placed...anyway. Malumbu - yes I asked to be convinced, I have changed my opinion when offered good evidence - I will change my opinion if I am convinced ED/ Dulwich LTNs will reduce pollution/traffic on my road - someone convince me this will happen.

From Southwark's own report from 2018 PRE- LTNs Dulwich Area Traffic Management Study. 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. Vehicle's per day 2015 East Dulwich Grove - 14,833 Melbourne Grove - 2,500 Southwark is the London borough with the sixth highest share of commuting cycle users (source: Transport Plan Annual Monitoring Report 2016). The 2011 Census has demonstrated an aggregate increase in percentage cycling to work in Southwark of 3.75% points since the 2001 Census (that is, from 3.98% to 7.73%). The number of people cycling to work rose from 3,965 in 2001 to 10,898 in 2011, which is an increase of 275%. A study carried out in July 2015 by The Railway Consultancy on six stations in Southwark, highlighted that a very large majority of rail passengers walks to the station (88% according to National Rail Travel Survey), while approximately 4-5% uses bus or car. Most of the local trips are made on foot but there is a significant number of pupils escorted to school by car from further locations. Interestingly - they added that closing Calton as a timed restriction would be problematic - a significant part of the existing traffic in residential areas is generated by parents dropping their children at school, this solution risks shifting the drop-off activity onto main roads with implications for congestion and safety of children. So Pre-LTNs Poor PTAL, cycling increasing, high levels of walking, including local school children and so called rat-run Melbourne not even anywhere as busy as ED Grove and a reluctance to do anything to add congestion onto ED Grove as concerns about the 'safety of children' So what have the LTNs really contributed apart from raising the value of houses in a few gated roads? It is interesting reading the report, one does get the impression that Calton Ave was closed mainly because the residents hated the private school coaches for JAGs and Alleyn's parking on their road.

Of course it must be great to have the nanny walk all the kids to school while one cycles to one's job in the City, very Calton Avenue/Gilkes Crescent - things are very different from some of the Mum's I met while doing a cleaning job for some extra cash. Life was time-poor and cash-poor with the need for many multiple journey's as well as travelling to cleaning jobs that started at 5:30 am to then go and do their carers job and take children to school/shop for food. I was lucky as I could walk, although walking to work at 4:00 in the morning is interesting.... Just condemning people who have very few options to choose in life is one way of looking at this issue, but maybe trying to provide public transport links, school pick-up buses and help to not rely on a car is another.

Maybe Barry needs speed cameras, maybe an average speed one? Don't wish speed bumps on Barry, cars and HGVs still speed over them (if it is a bus route they put speed-bumps in that do not damage buses, consequently they are easy to drive over, so cause terrible vibrations and noise as heavy vehicles still speed over them). The speed bumps on ED Grove are a joke, we either have idling traffic or speeding cars and they are all in the wrong place as were meant to be pedestrian crossing ramps, but when the Townley/ED Grove junction was redesigned along with these crossings - whatever useless road 'planner' designed that disaster didn't understand that you cannot have pedistrian crossings on a corner or near a junction, so they were abandoned and left as useless, dangerous and noisy speed-bumps The speed bump on the bend is also dangerous, unmarked clearly for the last 2 years, no warning about it being on a corner and only recently re-painted after an accident. It has also caused vibration damage to my neighbours house and the top floor flats suffer vibrations too. My neighbours sent in a complaint and I believe they are still waiting for a reply.

Oh I don't mind malumbu, I was more interested in what makes us assign a gender to the unknown, it was interesting that goldilocks 'she'ed' and you on a very few occasions had 'he'ed'... it made me consider why, possibly because I mentioned Mum's and cleaners to goldilocks? I do respect that you do always try to be gender neutral and hopefully I also try to not label either :) It's interesting - as someone who only walks or takes public transport in London as a rule these days, I remember having to drive through London at 4:00am on my way up to Papworth once a week - even as traffic free as it was at that time, the thought of doing that now fills me with dread.

So any evidence to convince me?

Nah..I love difference..is what makes the world go round.

Bus routes are usually on ribbon roads that currently have displaced traffic on them, I?m all for reducing car use, it?s a shame that despite me asking for someone to convince me with evidence so I can see that LTNs reduce traffic, car use and pollution, no one has yet supplied....I await the change. Out of interest why does Mal consider me Male and GL Female?

ab29 they can?t hear you above the noise of how terrible all car drivers are.

Thanks redpost - such a perfect example of It allows the new puritans to howl at Mums taking kids to school in some old rubbish car, or a cleaner driving to multiple house-holds to be accused of being a car-owning, petrol head, carbon-lover while actually not tackling the real issues of lack of investment and inequality. The 42 is the most useless bus ever -rubbish route - the 40 was always full all along it's whole journey, but Southwark made less fuss about it being cut than the fuss they have made over parklets.

Nope - the increases in car ownership isn't to be applauded. I think it is due to the lack of investment in public transport so many poorer families end-up spending a bigger proportion on a car than a wealthier family as it gives them access to wage increases, cheaper food shopping and the ability to make multiple journeys in a time poor day. The car is seen as a way to improve income and access. I would much rather Boris and his chums were investing in local transport links that provided families/ elderly and the less mobile with easy access to schools, work, health hubs, supermarkets, caring responsibilities etc. Sadly the defunding of PT by this and past governments has made the car the king - this is why LTNs are ridiculous - car ownership/road building all promoted by government, while also creating gated communities for the wealthy multi-car owning house-holders. It allows the new puritans to howl at Mums taking kids to school in some old rubbish car, or a cleaner driving to multiple house-holds to be accused of being a car-owning, petrol head, carbon-lover while actually not tackling the real issues of lack of investment and inequality. Boris has pulled a fast one and Southwark Councillors fell for it.

What is a high level comment? By the way I am always happy to be educated and my mind changed by evidence, so would love to be convinced that LTNs do reduce pollution and traffic overall. I have read lot's of studies but still can't gather all this up in a meta-analysis that shows me otherwise. If someone can show me that in a year the traffic and pollution on ED Grove will reduce to less than the pre-LTN levels, due to Southwark's interventions and that pollution will decrease across the whole area, with significant changes in cycling and walking above the 10 year trend upwards - I will change tack and become the biggest and proudest LTN supporter.

Thank you for the suggestion Nigello, but as many of us like to do - when I have downtime I would rather not be involved with my past daily practice for over 35 years. Happy to help Monica privately as she requested. As you appear to not like my input and have added an unnecessary and caustic remark I will withdraw from this thread and just contact Monica privately. Maybe you should reflect on how you sometimes address people who do offer advise and help.

Between 1960 and 2008 the increase in car ownership amongst all households has been from 29% to 75%7 (2.6xs) so the increase in car ownership amongst lower in come households has been much faster than in households as a whole and very much faster than wealthy households ? where the increases have been mainly in multi car ownership. In 2008 49% of households in the lowest income quintile had cars and 64% of households in the second lowest9 . If we take these together as representing low income households then it is more common for a low income household to have a car as not.Access to health facilities is twice as easy for people in households with cars and this is particularly important for the higher proportion of people in these households who are disabled or elderly. Low income car owning households tend to be larger than non car owning households. The increased flexibility, convenience and ?time affordability? of car travel is such that even poorer households are prepared to substantially increase their transport spending to enable the much higher level of accessibility car travel provides. Trip rates of people in Q1/Q2 households are higher for education and education escort- reflecting the high proportion of families with children in this income range and lower for ersonal business, social and holiday journeys - reflecting lower discretionary expenditure. Since the turn of the century the amount of car driver travel by people in low car ownership households has increased by 28% or about 660kms/head for all people in these households. Difficulty of access to shops is cut by at least two thirds compared with people in households without cars - which increases the opportunity for comparative shopping and greater availability of choice and lower prices from supermarkets. Access to health facilities is twice as easy for people in households with cars and this is particularly important for the higher proportion of people in these households who are disabled or elderly. DFT/ ONS and social exclusion unit data.

Actually there is opposing evidence that in London lower income groups are more dependent on access to a car than higher income groups in order to work, look after extended families and as carers. Also the information I quoted was copied and pasted from Southwark's EqIAs, so if any of you have an issue with their research outcomes for the consultation best take it up with them.

Maybe a budding artist can collate all the information that everyone is so generously giving on this thread and design a map of AEDs in the Dulwich/East Dulwich Area - it could be put up on info boards around the area?

Places open 24/7 are the best for obvious reasons - Sainsbury's might even fund one if asked? Monica I have sent a private message with the recommendation of the product - it is around ?1000 and there will be other suppliers. I was told a first-timer with no experience would pretty-much be able to use!

Older and disabled people?s groups have overwhelmingly reported negative impacts on their ability to travel by car, and corresponding increases in fatigue, pain, stress, anxiety, and mental health issues; this included essential visitors and service providers trying to reach them by car. ? For many disabled and older people, a car does not just assist with mobility issues. It is a necessity with private space to carry out certain personal functions and therefore essential for them. Information on Blue Badge holder exemptions was not clear for many disabled people and they requested area-wide exemptions; those who use hire cars rather than own private cars also need exemptions with reports of some hire cars refusing to come into the schemes or park further away for pick up/drop off. ? Older people reported signage is confusing with multiple and unclear signs about road closures, and timed closures on certain streets causing stress. ? Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic groups reported significant negative impacts on ability to drive to work (many were key workers). ? Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic groups who were local business owners reported negative impacts on their trading / local businesses. ? General Practitioners (GPs) reported difficulty to drive to work and some locum GP?s were not accepting shifts in the area due to difficulties in driving to medical centres. ? Many respondents fed back a perceived perception of increased traffic on external boundary roads with congestion and increased levels of pollution. ? As a result of the changes there was an Increased dependence on buses and public transport, but these were reported to be unreliable and impacted by congestion on boundary roads ?people reported longer wait at bus stops with exposure to increased pollution levels. ? Increase in cycling levels is mainly reported as a disbenefit to older and disabled people?s groups due to fear of cyclists? not following the highway code. ? Disabled people felt excluded from exercise and active travel. Not all disabled people are able to take up active travel and the street environment is not conducive for walking ? reports of obstructions (bins and overgrown planting), poor surfaces, lack of seating; pedestrian crossing times too short and many do not have audible signals; motor traffic idling increases pollution and makes walking more difficult for some.

Southwark also apparently dismissed to EqIAs data that showed the LTNs were unpopular with those with mobility issues and the wider BAME community. Southwark seems to have dismissed a lot in 'their' consultation. They decided to spread the net widely - for instance encouraging people that travel through the area by bike and also children at schools who do not live in the area to respond - because they thought they would then have an over-wehliming number supporting LTNs. They also produced questions with no ability to answer 'yes - I want less pollution, but I believe LTNs only increase traffic and pollution' When it didn't go the way they had planned, despite carefully wording questions to lead and inviting certain lobby groups to reply - they had a little strop and just basically dismissed the results of the consultation that they had designed and created at a huge cost. This is why people have lost any trust in the current Council.

Thank you ab29 - and back to what this is really about - Our Healthy Streets??? More pollution, gridlock, noise and misery diverted to those people not rich enough to live in the gated luxury of Gilkes, Calton and Court - as supplied by a Labour Council.

Yep Legal - on this one I agree with G Locks yet again, I can't see Melbourne opening improving much (it will be timed school street anyway) - It's the 'square of shame' that needs to go.

Nah - don't agree. Whataboutery is an attempt to discredit an opponent's position by charging hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving the argument and I agree the posters were terrible and I can't understand anyone putting it up in their window. I was just commenting on my ongoing disappointment with arses on Twitter. Isn't it everyone's responsibility to point out poor behaviour? Maybe send a list of 'offenders' to DA and ask them to go round and 'have a word'? So back to ab - what is the main reason that you as a non-driver want roads re-opened?

Meanwhile - ab29 just wants the roads re-opened and doesn't drive. What is the main reason you want roads re-opened ab29?

Nope - I was agreeing about arses. I was saying that there are many arses, some arses have posters that you are disappointed with and some arses call RKD 'illogical' and try and get her no platformed from anti-pollution conferences. Many arses. Big ones and smaller ones. Not whataboutering. You could always knock on their door and tell them you are disappointed?

I'm disappointed about the abuse that Rosamund Kissi-Debrah get's on Twitter daily from a certain sector of the LTN lobby, but you know - life is full of disappointments. In any group there are always a few arses.