heartblock

I agree with him...

How nice...I'm sure the kids next door in the small flat with no garden and horrid pollution tomorrow morning will be soooooooooo pleased for all the people living around the square of shame..with a large garden...parks...2 cars...their own bedroom... a nanny...private school ... and a nice holiday home in Suffolk.

East Dulwich Grove and the houses were built as a residential road for workers on the trains, nurses and soldiers circa 1880 - 1886, it is a narrow road with trees all along it and was not built as a super-highway, as per Croxted Rd and yes people who are less well off tend to live in flats, without gardens on busier roads. But thanks malumbu for expressing what many of us have been saying. LTNs benefit wealthy, white middle and upper middle classes who own very large houses and own multiple cars and have a high percentage of second homes. Ethnic minorities, less well-off, the elderly poor, single parents who live in flats, who depend on public transport and are less likely to own cars and cannot escape to the Lakes, Norfolk, Southwold suffer more traffic and pollution due to LTNS. Great isn't it - a scheme that the Consultation indicates is unpopular, with no data that confirms a drop in car use, a drop in pollution or an increase in cycling since the end of lockdown, but does show an increase in pollution and traffic on certain residential roads - at a time traffic and pollution dropped across London due to lockdown! - is still strangely supported. It only beggars belief - if you don't understand that the people who still shout out loud about how brilliant LTNs are - live in Gilkes, Court, Melbourne, Derwent and all own cars...some of them owning several..

It has definitely added, but weirdly the Council has very few designated parking for tradesmen, plumbers, electricians, builders and I know that they drive around for hours looking fo a parking space. Ocado has ?greener? slots so if you do have deliveries then you can try and book one of those. Riverford delivers very early and only once a week in a green van, Waitrose, Sainsbury?s etc ?? Is it greener that one van delivers groceries to many, or that individuals drive to do their big weekly shop, are deliveries a sign of lower car ownership? I think this is difficult to measure and are you more likely to have delivery if you don?t have a car. I?m trying to have more delivered to a pickup such as the Co-op but even then it needs to be delivered there. For the elderly and less mobile, delivery has been an excellent and helpful service. I don?t know what the answer is.

Back to the subject. These LTNs do not reduce traffic, reduce pollution and cause more people to cycle in any significant measurable way. There is stronger evidence that on certain residential roads that they have increased traffic at certain junction (200% in the case of ED Grove) and have impacted already polluted roads. Do go and look at Grove Vale, where people live, walk, shop and cycle, stalled traffic on a Saturday and surrounded by 3 LTNs.

Just like people who think that LTNs are the answer, people who think LTNs are not the answer, do not belong to some tribe that can be labelled as ?petrol-heads?, BREXIT voting, right-wing, anti-environment. I have had these comments on Twitter and here...intimating that everyone who thinks LTNs are a bad idea is a certain ?type?. I think this is both insulting and lazy. I don?t know how many times I have seen LTN Twitter supporters tell Rosamund Kissi-Debrah that she is supporting pollution increases or trying to no platform her, because part of her campaign to make our air less polluted, includes her vehement opposition to what she believes is socially unjust road closures that only benefit the richest in society.

Nah

Most of those huge metal boxes with leather sofas can be seen parked on Calton, Court and Melbourne, I walk down those roads often and always amazed at the huge Range Rovers, BMWs etc. In the case of Calton, usually another car parked on the drive and in the case of Gilkes a car on the drive, one on the road, one in the garage and one parked at the second home in .... Southwold, The Lakes, Norfolk...... There is no proof that these LTNs cause a change in behaviour and a modal-shift in transport choices (traffic is up again and cycling down again), whereas the availability of excellent public transport at an affordable price does change behaviour. Funnelling traffic just causes misery, more pollution for those who are more likely to walk and take public transport, due to the demographic make up of high density residential roads in London.

geh - yes this completely. Last time I wanted to visit friends in Devon ?500 for travel for us both, cheaper by car. A huge investment is needed and not in LTNs.

Public transport - yes exactly. This is what we should all be campaigning for - LTNs are a diversion. The Insulate protesters are quite right - The UK?s housing stock remains some of the worst in Europe with almost 10,000 people a year thought to die from fuel poverty. Millions more struggle with poor physical and mental health caused by cold and damp living conditions and emissions from buildings still account for 17% of the country?s greenhouse gas emissions.

LTNs and electric cars are not the panacea, but at least electric cars reduce NOx levels (unfortunately particulates are a little more problematic) whereas LTNs funnel cars, HGVs, SUVs and vans onto high density residential roads with schools and health centres. So electric cars may be less a case of green-washing than LTNs. Non-violent protest and direct action to oppose polluting companies and policy. I do find that it is the eye of the beholder - so NV direct action against LTNs or a protest against LTNs is seen by some as vandalism and idiotic, by others a protest against polluting policy. Extinction rebellion and/or the M25/Dover protesters - Global Climate Strike action - in my view - Good for them - so some people are a bit delayed or put out - but there really is a climate emergency.

Well I still love East Dulwich, despite many changes over the last 35 years, I think I liked it more when it was more multi-cultural, had more green spaces and the Irish Shop, but the increases in independent retail have made LL a lovely area as well. It was great having the police station on LL - a real shame it closed. The 10% reduction in traffic is reflected across London, including non-LTN areas in the months measured - but as people return to 'the office' traffic and car use is on the rise and cycling is falling. The obvious reason not pointed out in the Council Leaflet (with poor and biased analysis of the raw data from the consultation), is that car use dropped at the height of the pandemic and lockdown, cycling increased around the neighbourhood while working from home or home-schooling during the Summer as it was a nice thing to do. LTNs do not reduce car use or increase cycling and PT usage. That is quite clear as Autumn data starts to emerge. The Consultation points to a failed experiment and LTNs should be removed and alternative actions planned.

Yep, like many I support measures that reduce pollution, decrease the amount of time cars are on the roads, especially idling -polluting queues of traffic, I support an increase in public transport, that is cleaner- greener and reliable - with end-to-end journeys, so that the PTAL for ED and Dulwich increases. Which is why many agreed with reduction of traffic and pollution in Southwark, but did not support the current LTNs. I support bike lanes and better pavements and routes for pedistrians, I support re-wilding and a ban on building on green spaces. That's the reason I do not support these current LTNs or the road that was historically closed as a temporary road repair measure, but stayed so as not to upset the chief planner/ designer of many a disaster in Southwark - successful Consultation only happens it seems, between mates and ex-councillors/employees of the council who live on particular roads. LTNs do not reduce car use, idling traffic and pollution. They do increase pollution and traffic on high density residential school roads.

I have no problem with making all the Private Schools local non-private and only have children from a walking distance catchment area, but one supporter of gated roads for the 3-4 bedroom houses on extremely wealthy roads and more pollution for roads with majority flats and school roads said this was too dictatorial and anti-choice on another thread. I think ignoring the results of a consultation and keeping gated roads despite them not reducing traffic and pollution is far more dictatorial.

The latest TFL data shows that in August 2021 cycling is already down to pretty much pre-Covid and pre-LTN levels. Why pollute and cause idling traffic, longer journeys and loneliness for the elderly and less mobile for the sake of saving face for a failed policy. The consultation clearly points to the lack of support for LTNs and other data shows that there has not been a modal shift to active travel due to LTNs and PTAL has worsened. Improve PT, get rid of LTNs, bring in ULEZ and use a carrot not a stick.

Actually, it is reasonable to have a new thread. I agree with Legal...not just this 'consultation', but also about consulting on infilling and building on parks. 100's of videos from locals angry about not being consulted about building on a park, in the 5 year lead up echos the terrible job of consulting on LTNs. It is perfectly reasonable for ED forum users to discuss how their Council uses their Council Tax and what representation local Councillors in Goose Green, Village Ward actually give us on the full Southwark Council and Council senate. Otherwise what is the point of them?

So close to 70% rejection from responders to current road closures. Southwark designed this consultation, they even encouraged cycling lobby groups to reply and went out of their way to promote closed roads as a positive change with leaflets, posters and flinging money at the square of shame for nice events that wouldn?t frighten the nice neighbourhood............ even then the policy of gated communities has been rejected in their consultation. Now they ignore it. I wonder what the cost of the whole exercise was. If they were intending to ignore the results why spend ?our? council tax on it. I would rather a few more children got a free school meal with that money. What a waste.

I support measures that encourage the use of public transport, walking and cycling and discourage car use, that is why I oppose LTNs as there is no proof that they discourage driving (10% reduction is the best stat that Southwark can come up with - in a pandemic when driving has reduced across London by around 16% due to lockdown and home working, and by excluding South Circular and Underhill road from the calculation). Cycling and walking were already on the rise before LTNs and Covid 19 -they peaked briefly Summer 20/21 and are now returning to pre-Covid and lockdown levels. Buses in London in non-LTN areas have faster transit times during lockdown, buses have been slowed by LTNs on ED Grove, Croxted. Amazingly the roads that are shut - have reduced traffic - who knew? I fully support any policy that encourages the use of other types of transport rather than cars and reduces idling traffic and pollution on residential roads with high density populations - LTNs in Dulwich and ED do not achieve this according even to the bodged data of the Consultation, which is why 65% of the responders want them removed.

Probably best not to tell people that Southwark will listen to THEIR consultation that THEY designed then ignore the results when they don?t fit in with the policy. Yes it is responders, but also protected groups that THEY consulted. If you disagree with the consultation design then that?s another thing. Maybe Southwark should release the raw data. It should also re-published the data that they have removed ..as it shows that LTNs do not significantly reduce traffic overall when compared to before. It?s a bit embarrassing when the only reduction that they can publish is 10% overall (with 25% increase on at least one residential road) compared to London overall during the lockdown over the same period, which actually had a larger reduction of traffic, including areas with no LTNs. Seems LTNs do not reduce car use, just makes journeys longer and increases idling, polluting traffic. The era of idiocy is upon us.

Wow..that was a full victim blame post with a handful of misogynistic language thrown in there. I think we should have a prize every week for the outstanding idiotic post of the week. I vote Dimelda, with dim being the operative word.

They will not change their minds - either vote them out or take a legal step.

Pugwash, in the consultation paper ...hidden discreetly it does say that the cycling numbers are already dropping. UK wide they are almost back to pre-lockdown and pre LTN levels. I don?t find this joyous as I would like more people to find alternatives to private cars...but obviously I don?t think LTNs encourage this. And it seems, they probably don?t.

Viz 🙄. So a question. Why has Southwark compared Sept 2019 pollution level to June 2021 levels on ED Grove. Wasn?t the schools closed, so traffic will not peak at school run? Why only a month? Am I missing something?

I think the next will be businesses that don't fit into the nice road and bring the place down and security to remove the unwanted or any strangers from the anti-homeless hostile-architecture benches and parklets. Only fragrant, clean and middle-classes allowed in this road.. no riff-raff or loud urban music.. just nice guitar music or a bit of that nice tune they play on antiques road show (isn't it by some famous composer?) - just to show how worldly we are - how about some Tango? what's that...what's that???????? invite a Skate Tingz event? oh no...no...no... not the sort of thing we want to encourage in our lovely square/ road/parklet/mummy coffee area.....we are more children halloween nights and nice cucumber sandwiches...ooooh not roller skating and that loud music.

Same reason they build on parks... fingers in ears like a child crying ?not listening? ?not listening ? or was that Gollum in Lord of the Rings?