Abe_froeman

Hi Malumbu as I understand you don't live in Goose Green nor even in Southwark?

Fantastic news on the LTNs, can't wait for them to be removed so that traffic is dispersed equally rather than being shunted onto a few targeted residential roads

Hello James did you get a response to your questions below from October? I am especially interested given what the High Court said about the Streetspace programme last week. Are the Goose Green councillors planning to make any changes to the local emergency covid changes given that judgment (or at least lobbying Councillors Rose and Burgess for the same)? Posted by jamesmcash 14 October, 2020 16:38 - WHAT NEXT? I have spoken to Cllr Rose and Cllr Burgess (the Cabinet and Deputy Cabinet members with responsibility for this area) to request that these measures be evaluated as soon as we can. I have further requested that the evaluation considers the following factors: - Overall levels of pollution - Overall levels of traffic - The ?social justice? implications of how pollution and traffic are distributed (i.e. who lives on the more polluted streets?)

Lord knows what will happen to all these vehicles. I've tried to sell a non ULEZ compliant car that was worth about ?10k four years ago and the dealership told me they wouldn't even be able to give it away now.

"Posted by malumbu Yesterday, 06:44PM PS don't live in a gated community and shocked that we have them here..." I pretty sure you've said elsewhere on this forum that you don't even live in Southwark

Even if only 10% of the 3,000 people who signed that petition live near EFG and Lordship Lane, that's still more people against these ridiculous road closures than were for them in the local consultation targeted at residents living in the gated communities.

Hello James Happy New Year to you. I wondered how you thought this was all going in Goose Green (obviously) and East Dulwich more widely (if you don't mind)? Posted by jamesmcash 14 October, 2020 16:38 ----------- WHAT DOES SUCCESS LOOK LIKE? In my view, we need to look at the effects across the whole area but also on individual streets. The two key criteria are air pollution and traffic volume. Put simply, if these two measures are not reduced across the whole area then the scheme has failed. It is not enough to displace the traffic - we want to reduce it overall. But even if air pollution and traffic volume decrease across the board, it matters how it is distributed. I want to see a social justice approach to the analysis. No matter what we do there will inevitably be some pollution and traffic. I want this to be shared equitably: protecting schools, nurseries and hospitals above all else; and not allowing the negative effects of air pollution to fall on those least able to bear them. We have a new Leader of the Council, Cllr Kieron Williams, and this approach is already reflected in his leadership team. Instead of creating a post for ?Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?, he appointed Cllr Radha Burgess as Deputy Cabinet Member for ?Low Traffic Southwark?. The shift in emphasis is important: we want to reduce traffic across all of Southwark, not segregate ?low traffic? and ?high traffic? neighbourhoods. (To be clear, this is not the intention of LTN measures, but if they do not work properly this can be the outcome). WHAT NEXT? I have spoken to Cllr Rose and Cllr Burgess (the Cabinet and Deputy Cabinet members with responsibility for this area) to request that these measures be evaluated as soon as we can. I have further requested that the evaluation considers the following factors: - Overall levels of pollution - Overall levels of traffic - The ?social justice? implications of how pollution and traffic are distributed (i.e. who lives on the more polluted streets?).

"M and S always has yellow label reductions on lots of its stuff daily, suggesting there is not the demand for at least some of its range." I guess a massive amount of that business proposition is predicated on there being hundreds of people a day passing by to catch a train

They certainly behave like they're in some sort of cult

.

It was somewhere in here. I think the report cost only ?10,000 actually... /forum/read.php?5,1536718

The council spent about ?25,000 commissioning an independent third party report into the benefit and impact of closing Melbounre Grove at EDG, as well as other alternatives, and that report noted that it was a very bad idea to proceed with a closure. But some people now know better of course.

I have signed that petition because I agree with all of it. However, it's pretty laughable that a representative of the Dulwich village business and shops is party to the alliance given how much publicity and support they gave to the "Dulwich Square" nonsense last summer. I guess chickens are coming home to roost.

Quietway 7 is a useful as is the new cycle route that goes from 148 Chinese restaurant to Kwik Fit.

You can see from this old street view that they just used to park up in the road. https://goo.gl/maps/gcyAGfRHJ7Zkaea86

I think the Townley Rd /EDG lights have to be as they are to allow the advance cycle phase. Which I think was meant to be part of the abortive Quietway 7 which allows cyclists to travel from Dulwich Village to the soon to be massive construction site that is Greendale playing fields

RCH, was that the same consultation that also included the grossly unwanted CPZ schemes?

How many of them came from the unwashed hordes of North Cross Road and how many from all of the rest of Southwark?

malumbu you've said on another thread that you don't even live in this borough. Presumably that also means you have barely ever been to East Dulwich Grove since these closures - lockdown prohibits that.

I will miss this market when it's no longer around because a bunch of people who weren't there to shop had it closed down after they and lots of other people who'd come to gawp at the crowds.

"How much money will be made by redevelopment of the site? Where has that gone and could it not have been used to fund a new, more appropriate location for the service?" I think those are questions that were for the labour council to answer when they granted planning permission to this scheme. I'm guessing they will have got something out of the post office under a s106 or similar, given the scale of the site? If so they must have weighed that in the balance against the inevitable consequences of closing the site.

Good point! But I bet the nimbies in those roads will still get upset and object to this nursery.

Wont all the traffic just head into the closed roads nearby to park during drop off and pick up (e.g. Melbourne Grove, Derwent grove etc.

All you people who were in the market but not there to buy anything , just there to see how busy it was, are a much bigger problem than the customers. There are plenty of alternative routes around the market that you shoild be using instead.

Maybe a cycling themed one for all the people cycling down the LTN,,,