heartblock

It seems the rather unpleasant discourse; by those in favour of the current LTNs in Dulwich, on the DA poster is ok for rahrahrah, with it's latest nasty bit of posting, but this one isn't?

I like the spirals, they signify musical notation I believe, but yes I miss the Hepworth, irreplaceable. I wish I had visited it more often...

I think the cargo bike is great. The traffic on ED Grove isn?t from people who live on the rd unfortunately. Also as most are small flats, with no gardens and a shared small hallway entrance storage would be an issue. Car ownership is low on the Grove, it is much higher in the LTNs, as an example many multi-vechicle owning houses in Calton. Dulwich also is one of the three boroughs with the highest percentage of active travel (mainly walking) for local journeys. In the LTN literature from Southwark, it does also say that it is expected that traffic and pollution will increase on boundary rds. They also state that dealing and reducing this rise in pollution is not within the scope of the plan... so basically they don?t care about the boundary roads and they knew they would suffer more pollution.

Well I am a remainer and more left than the current labour leadership... and a supporter of Ext Rebellion/ BLM many other things, but this does prove that the NIMBYs and the LTN at any cost, view is rather off the mark when it tries to frame many anti-LTNers as right-wing petrol heads. Anyway.. aren't we all over this exhausting and pointless thread?

When a campaign starts to bite...then opponents find the weakest point and attack, even to the point of smearing (in ED Grove) everyday people who have put a poster in their window because they are being ignored by the Council. Also smearing businesses that are also suffering here and on Twitter on Melbourne and LL. This includes carers, health workers and teachers etc. who have to suffer an increase in pollution, so others can live in their nice leafy quite rd. I imagine the thought of losing their nice, leafy quiet rd, means that they will be reduced to smearing their neighbours on boundary rds, because of a badly worded poster. Yes, they did use this term from MP Huq's speech and yes it does have a 'trigger' because it is close to a white supremacist slogan. I have been part of BLM as well as other anti-racist campaigns and it 'triggered' me, but all streets matter isn't a racist slogan is it? It just triggers a reminder of a very hateful group of people. I fully understand that many do not keep such a keen eye and politics, they are not on Twitter, they do not follow this forum and the only reason they have the DA poster in the window, is because they are despairing of the situation that has increased their risk of ill health and want to be part of a campaign that is listening to them and giving them a voice. So, I do wonder how many on this thread decrying the phrase and smearing their neighbours are actually that upset about the poster? If they are really that concerned about racism, maybe they should consider the actions of the LCC official who was very much involved in setting up LTNs and maybe they should listen to little ninja and Rosumunda Kissi Debrah on their opinions of LTNs and the impact on the BAME community.

Exactly John, one LTN at any cost person, told me it?s my fault for buying a flat on ED Grove and calling me basically stupid to complain about the additional traffic. ?You should have bought a house on a different road 30 yrs ago?. Unfortunately as a poor junior health professional coming out of a toxic relationship I could only afford this flat, as my life became better I invested and improved my flat and came to love ED Grove, up until now. Southwark should be reducing pollution on already bust rds, not increasing pollution. It?s just gated communities for the most privileged and we all know it.

This is brilliant...love this shop.

The provision of charging points in Southwark and specifically Dulwich is pitiful. Maybe a Green Party led Council next year can actually make some real policies to reduce petrol vechicles.

ab29...they don't care, because they live in an LTN. They are very happy. There is no data published that shows LTNs reduce pollution. Traffic has not increased at the rate quoted in many 'research' papers, the small increase was mainly due to how data was collected and categorised. If LTNs did reduce pollution I would happily support them, but they very obviously increase idling traffic, make journeys longer and only have an impact within the actual LTN. LAS have LTNs on a DATIX risk register as causing a possible catastrophic event. Yes, do invest in local low emission transport, do have timed school streets, school cycle lanes and training for pupils, LTNs are a waste of public money, they do not work and they increase pollution.

You know..I think they don?t really believe is is even ?something?, it isn?t really about ?healthy streets? and they all know it. What?s even funnier is they know that we know they don?t believe it.

I think maybe people do not want to consider the whole picture, they are very likely to have a home in an LTN and are considering their environment, their house price and are not really interested in reducing pollution at all. That is why LTNs are the easy sell to people who benefit. They do not have to do anything, they can still drive two petrol cars, still drive their kids to school and they can carry on with no detriment to their lives. It was a clever Tory policy, which stupidly was taken up by Labour Councils. It isn?t a real solution but allows councillors to pretend they care, getting strong support from people inside LTNs, total greenwash. Meanwhile Southwark is selling green spaces in estates to private contractors to build private homes. Losing playgrounds, gardens and areas where people can get air and light. It?s really a bit sh*t!

LTNs increase idling traffic - idling traffic increases pollution. I'm not sure why this simple equation is not understood. Remove the LTNs and come up with a proper strategy that includes regular, low emission local public transport, school cycle routes, school buses with drop off points so children walk down school roads, etc. Tinkering around with half-hearted poorly planned, poorly monitored and 'green washing' policy really is not reducing pollution. It is awful for residents and people on buses, cycles and walking to work, school on EDG, LL and Croxted.

"Are we not just robbing Peter to pay Paul" It's worse than that, it is increasing pollution and ill health on those who are least able to move house, have higher levels of inequality and less access to open spaces. Rosamund Kissi Debrah, clean air campaigner, Green Party candidate and lives close to an A road, is actively campaigning against LTNs as they increase pollution on roads that were never designed as 'motorways'. East Dulwich Grove housing was built in the 1860-80's, the first cars in the UK were built from the 1890's, so no...this road was not built for cars, it was built for people to live and breathe in.

When I bought a flat in East Dulwich Grove I was relatively poor as a newly qualified NHS worker at King's. After spending 30 years of my life working in the NHS and now teaching the next generation I still live in the same flat as it is not a very well salaried job. It would be lovely if I was paid enough to afford a house in Calton or Court. Apparently it is OK for me to breathe in more pollution because I was too poor to afford a house on a leafy rd and I had to buy one on an A rd. Thanks people who think LTNs are great, thank you for my increased risk of heart disease, lung disease and cancer. Thank you for deciding that the least well off can just put up with it. It is so lovely to walk down Calton and admire the two car families and their lovely unpolluted rd. Thank you neighbours.

It isn't the greatest design in the world, but it says "all streets matter' as a BLM supporter I can work out the difference between a white supremacist slogan and a slogan that is trying to state that people living on boundary roads have lives that are also worth protecting from pollution. But really......trying to smear people who just want access to clean air as "supporters of racist groups" - now that is something that some people need to have a bit of a word to themselves about.

Promote...mmmhhhh well. So can create a new post with salary costs etc. Yet unable to provide pollution monitors for boundary residential school rds due to cost...

What a mess...

Would love another bike. Yes I was actually impressed by Count Binface's manifesto, far more Socialist than the 'new' Labour Party.

mmmmh well Bailey saying he will remove 'unpopular' LTNs isn't going to help remove Southwark LTNs, he will not have any authority. I think it will take the 2022 local elections and independent candidates or a legal case to get these things removed.

They don't need cycle hangers in the Village LTNs...as they have SUVs to put their bikes in/on when they drive to the 'country pad' or a a large garden to store them in.

So...to get back to the original OP.......

My rd..low car ownership..very few SUVs .... Carlton LTN ...high car ownership and many, many, SUVs. EDGrove traffic morning, evening private school run..SUVs with one child one parent. Local kids and parents walk. Maybe ED Grove should be a school street and closed 7:45 to 8:45 and Calton opened??? No 37 bus and 42 bus allowed, plus blue badge and residents of the Grove. I take 37 bus anyway or walk to Herne Hill

Smooch. You are not alone. I agree with your post.

Rosamund Kissi Debra - "Asked why I don?t support LTNs? Bcos its slowly poisoning my kids & thousands more due to daily exposure to toxic air. I?m a mum of 3 & love them equally never choose. Supporting such a scheme means you support #lungapartheid. If your rd is clear, congestion has moved elsewhere"

Actually the temporary emergency closures that are being made permanent without consultation of residents on boundary roads. I?m still waiting for Southwark Council to officially inform me and my neighbours by letter. For any permanent road change that may adversely impact residents, Southwark has a duty to inform and consult. Support the legal fund as Southwark has failed to consult you.