heartblock

Oh and TFL has also published data that cycle use has dropped back across London to almost pre-lockdown levels...I imagine quite a few bicycles on gumtree soon, not my little two wheeled horse though, she travels pre/post lockdowns and pandemics, but doesn?t like rain 😜

Car use/traffic was reduced across London in areas with and WITHOUT LTNs according to TFL, to erroneously claim that LTNs are the main causal factor of any reduced car use in Dulwich is misleading. In fact traffic and bus journeys increased on ED Grove after LTNs were introduced, while bus journey times decreased on average across London during lockdown. So...you know..think about it ....

I think if left on your doorstep most companies will replace as packages are supposed to be given to someone or left in an agreed secure place. My little group of neighbours in flats keep an eye out and take in parcels and the text the neighbours. By the way, do not approach this guy, just report...a Stanley knife can do a lot of damage and it?s not worth the risk.

I?m not sure what ?allow people to drive wherever they like? means. Cars are driven legally on open roads, I also don?t know what driving on one road as oppose to another has to do with overall pollution levels. There is no actual collected raw data that show or evidence that LTNs reduce pollution. In fact there is empirical evidence that LTNs have caused excessive idling traffic on ED Grove and Croxted Rd, with additional measured data from Southwark council of at least a 25% increase in traffic on ED Grove - and scientific data that proves idling traffic causes more particulate and NOx pollution than moving traffic. So again, why and how does a car journey on Melbourne or Calton cause less clean air than making a longer journey with more periods of idling via Croxted or ED Grove? Which incidentally have far more residents than Calton or Gilkes for example, due to higher density housing? Edited to correct quote..Soz.

Yep the right to buy is madness. Taxing second homes would not go down well in Gilkes and Calton, but yes bring it on and use the proceeds to build more social housing......but not on parks.

Yes that is entirely true, although nearly 900 empty council houses as shown in the FOI and documented by Southwark Council themselves is nothing to be proud of. The number on the park does not equal 900 and this is an area with hardly any green space and one of the most polluted roads in London.

And it isn't the right to buy that is an issue, it is Southwark selling housing stock that is in 'nice' areas to private investors, then concentrating social housing in certain areas...and then taking away their green spaces. They could have transformed Heygate rather than sell off and cause many older residents with no choice but to move due to the stock being offered at 3-4 times the rent.

The latest report, so not through a FOI and outlined in Southwark News in an excellent article by Katherine Johnstone https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/the-great-infilling-debate-in-southwark-every-estate-where-new-developments-are-proposed-or-already-underway/ Last year the charity Action on Empty Homes compiled new statistics it described as ?extremely worrying? showing that the number of empty homes in Southwark had rocketed during lockdown, with one in 24 having ?no one living there?. More than 3,600 homes in Southwark in 2020 were no longer listed as primary residences, up by almost 600 per cent from 523 in 2019 ? the highest recorded rise in any London borough. There are also a further 2,358 homes listed as long-term empty properties in Southwark, up from 1,469 this time last year. While properties can be listed as temporarily empty in snapshot data during renovations, house sales or in between lets, any rise in the number that are empty long-term is particularly concerning. So Alice is correct in saying 5000 empty homes, although possibly these are not all social housing

Yes I even have information that a package was delivered (says tracked and delivered) but was not even attempted.

I think the 5000 are across South London if I remember correctly so Lambeth, Southwark, Bromley etc. this doesn?t include the council property that Southwark has sold off, which is also a significant amount, I will try and find the FOI when I?m less busy with work.

The council admits to around 900 empty, but there are a few other estate properties that they have snowballed. Here is the 900 they admit to. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/659979/response/1617201/attach/html/5/Empty%20properties.pdf.html

Apparently poor people who live in garden-less flats in Peckham don?t deserve a park and it?s their fault if people are homeless because they selfishly want a green space to breathe in (the LBC interview with a Southwark councillor was shocking). But it is ok for people in Dulwich Village with gardens bigger than Peckham Green to have a new ?square of shame? and Dulwich Park. Southwark Council is so wrong-headed.

It is difficult to know what they could do, especially as now any buses travelling down ED Grove during the school run are delayed by about 20 mins on top of what was a slow bus journey before the LTNs. That is where maybe the American style school bus could help? Closing 5 roads just off EDG has made what was traffic, but moving traffic now just an idling nightmare, they obviously didn't factor in the schools and health centre. Maybe EDG is closed to all private cars that are not registered as belonging to residents between 8:00 and 9:00am on school days? So only buses, school buses, registers disabled and commercial vehicles allowed, but that would only push cars onto my neighbours roads on LL and Grove Vale...and I wouldn't want to add to their misery - roads already impacted by LTNs on the non-school roads of Calton, Court, Derwent, Melbourne (the non-school side) etc.

If it is where I think it is..it is part of the process of Southwark building on a park and one of the last green spaces in the most polluted part of Peckham I believe. Another Southwark Council planning disaster. Plane trees cut down and many very upset residents.

It's best not to reply to persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, it only encourages. The schools definitely need a rethink, USA style school buses come to mind, but not sure how that would work for the private schools.

So Dulwich has a PTAL of 1 - Very Poor, so why LTNs were introduced..is a mystery to me...well actually not a mystery as we know the real reasons LTNs went in, but anyway this score is based on. ? Walking time from the point-of interest to the public transport access points; ? The reliability of the service modes available; ? The number of services available within the catchment; and ? The level of service at the public transport access points - i.e. average waiting time. And Dulwich scores the lowest possible on PTAL.

But it isn?t a restriction on car use, people inside LTNs in Dulwich have high car ownership and drive them....do have a walk down Calton or Gilkes or Melbourne sometime. It is a diverting of car use onto fewer roads. It makes a journey longer without any other alternative except walking or cycling...and cycling is the mode that Southwark have been foolish to stake their bad planning on. Cycling levels have already dropped back across London to pre-Covid levels. As the UN states, good, joined up, clean and affordable public transport is the way to get cities moving and to give personal equality to city dwellers whatever their mobility, age or income. The transport choices, prices and reliability of public transport is dire in South London and the PTAL rating terrible.

If unplanned temporary measures are implemented without consultation, equality impact assessment and funded using the governments Covid emergency social distancing fund, while based on a few very vocal, close to the current council, wealthy residents, who for years have lobbied for gated roads....and you get all your advice from a cycling lobby that represents one, small interest group. ....then maybe these just do not work well for anybody in the end and they are not fit for the new purpose of encouraging less car use. Remove the LTNs, consult, plan and then implement a range of solutions and objectives to help residents choose public transport and active travel and to help school children and their parents to have the ability to access transport choices that do not cause idling and polluting traffic. Because at present LTNs cause pollution and idling traffic, they do not prevent it.

Exactly. Closed roads cause problems for businesses inside and outside of the closed road, couldn?t have put it better myself.

What an awful thing to happen, I do hope the father is receiving good victim support and all the services he needs.

Count the cars on Calton and Gilkes and then add one extra for the car at the second home in...Suffolk, Lake District, Devon....and one in the garage. I?ll have a look to see if I can find online data later.

As Melbourne is now an LTN, why not remove all parking except for some disabled bays and a few for business visitors. Then the 37 can run down Melbourne. I?m sure the residents will support as this will encourage a modal change for people living down that road to not use their cars.

LTNs and the idea that that cycling is the answer is to divert attention away from the crisis in public transport. Only clean, regular and cheap public transport will reduce dependence on the car. The data shown no significant increase in cycling since 2018, cycling is great as is walking, I tend to walk any journey that takes 45min. So now LTNs are in why aren?t the LTN campaigners asking for cheaper better public transport, instead of having celebrations on how lovely their new space is? Because in reality it isn?t about reducing car use or pollution, it?s about having a nice, quiet road for a select, wealthy few.

Well - the UN thinks that. 'Reliable, accessible and affordable public transportation reduces pollution and traffic and promotes productivity and inclusion. Access is measured as the share of the population within 500 metres walking distance of low-capacity transport systems (buses and trams) and 1,000 metres distance to high-capacity systems (trains, subways and ferries. Because most trips involve a combination of several modes of transport, cities need to provide multi-modal transport systems and address modal integration as a major component of any urban mobility strategy. For example, high-capacity public transport systems ? metro, light rail, or bus rapid transit (BRT) ? need to be integrated with other forms of public transport that serve as feeder services to ensure full utilization of their conveyance capacity. Emphasis is therefore to be placed on ?last mile access,? to allow residents easy access to the public transport system' I think I agree.

I think they are currently paying some external company a lot if OUR money to manipulate the data in a format that makes it appear that the LTNs are popular and that active travel has increased. This can be achieved by grouping and or changing boundaries. TFL did the same thing with active travel data. They grouped cycling and walking together to make it look like that there was a huge increase in cycling over lockdown. In fact with an FOI request the increase was in walking in the main, probably due to home working, shopping locally etc..but a good thing in any-case. Cycling went up a by about 5% and is now back to the same sort of levels pre-lockdown. Not that you would know that by the widely banded around information that is used to support the failed LTNs and the square of shame.