Dogkennelhillbilly

I was on EDG at about 5pm today, there wasn't any congestion at all. Is this kind of anecdata useful? "the petition has nearly a thousand signatures which is about 8% of the total population of East Dulwich" Yeah, but change.org petitions of any persuasion are a load of old tut. Those signatories aren't all East Dulwich residents (or even necessarily all real).

"remember, you can expect about 11% reduction in car use)" An 11% reduction in car usage in one fell swoop would be a huge achievement. It just goes to show how many of those journeys weren't critical. Remember also that the reductions are cumulative - so the next traffic scheme in the next neighbourhood will reduce car journeys by another 11%. OneDulwich professes to be really, really concerned about congestion and pollution, but they want an overnight solution that solves all problems and without inconvenience. It ain't gonna happen.

I'm not going to say anything specific about anyone because I don't know their circumstances. However, 90% of stay at home parents whose journey involves a 10 min school run through the centre of Brixton could be choosing a different form of transport without undue hardship. And it's exactly those journeys that have to go.

/forum/read.php?5,2144682

"Then came OneDulwich and this galvanised cross-Dulwich support for people who wanted a more balanced discussion and finally there was a group that could not be ignored by the council..." OneDulwich galvanised a lobby that had never previously espoused any concern about air pollution in Dulwich but were really upset when they couldn't drive their car to the shops.

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I?ve set out on the petition thread that if these > roads should be reopened, we should also open up > all the closed off or restricted roads in East > Dulwich to maximise driving ease...> Surely if all these closures were reopened then > the gridlock in the area would disappear. I don't know why you're being so unambitious. If we really want driving ease, we should start by getting rid of speed bumps (just leads to stop start driving), traffic lights (install roundabouts at every location), removing all bus and cycle lanes (more car space means more car speed, it's just common sense), remove at least one pavement from each road (more lane space - most of the time there isn't even anyone walking along pavements, what a waste), reopening Dulwich Park to traffic (there are perfectly good roads there and there would still be tons of green space to look at as you drove by), reducing bus frequency (I appreciate that old people and kids need to get around, but some of those buses take up as much room as three cars!), and raise speed limits to sensible levels. Barry Road, Burbage Road, Court Lane and Crystal Palace Rd could all be 50 mph zones with modern cars and brakes, especially if there were more railings to stop pedestrians blocking traffic.

Shrieker's got plenty of mates who live with him under the bridge OP: it's usually bloody foxes that do it.

I wasn't talking about you. I have no idea about who you are or your political persuasion. I was talking about the person who wrote the article.

I'm not standing in change's way and I do think it's going to happen anyway. It's consistent with the casualisation and alienation of the workforce. I'm just surprised to see a socialist so chirpy about it.

How long has it been? Councillor isn't a full time job (or a job at all, strictly speaking) and it looks like he's got a school to teach...

"You should get a small increase for WFH for bills. Also chairs and desks etc. should be claimable from expenses" You're gonna get a small short term increase for a desk and a big long term drop in salary.

"To be honest, the current congestion on Ed > Grove/ the village is largely school-related as > far as I can see and has always been that way." I agree with most of what you say, but this simply isn't correct. Congestion gets worse at school times, but in those locations, there is congestion in the school holidays and congestion for much, much longer than just the period around pickup and dropoff. "Rush hour" in the afternoon is basically 2.30 to 7.30pm. We have oodles of traffic data to show this. In more Central London, there basically isn't a rush hour any more - it's just constant congestion. The reality is that there needs to be a dramatic reduction in car, minicab and delivery van use. We are all part of the problem, and there is no solution that does not involve some short term inconvenience and adjustment. TINA. The complaints about short term displaced traffic from one or two minor changes show how widespread and systematic these changes need to be.

"It?s no coincidence office blocks take inspiration from 19th century factories: they are intended to be sites of surveillance and control..." Only Novara would print this tosh. Odd that a socialist would be so keen to see the workforce atomised and made more amenable to offshoring. The consequences of inviting the employer to occupy the employee's home rent free has not been considered.

Shaggy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Does anyone think we should have the right to use > our cars as much as we like? > > Does anyone think that those who can use > alternative means of transport, such as bikes, > should? Loads of people think they should be able to drive wherever they want. No one ever thinks it's their journeys that are the problem - just other people's. "All of this traffic is getting in MY way!" Even weirder, many of them also object to things that encourage other means of transport, not realising that if other people were not in cars, their own car journey would be easier.

rupert james Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > mrwb Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Crime, unemployment and associated economic > > crisis > > > what we need to deal with. Car usage will > > > naturally decline as people leave. > > > > What population level will "naturally" take us > > down to an acceptable level of congestion and > > pollution in London? How long will that take? > > > The ULZ according to Khan the Magnificent will > have the potential to take 2.7million off the road > in 2021. Citation needed, I think. There were about 2.7 million cars in total in London recently. I doubt the ULEZ is going to result in them all being scrapped https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/environment/air-quality-consultation-phase-3b/user_uploads/ulez-consultation-appendix-j.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjto8OrlNnrAhUyNOwKHctBCC0QFjALegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw1NsMgjH8JtHIBtDV-7eDnI

To be fair, a lot of people have been making a lot of stuff up on this very thread.

If you're that curious, you should email him and ask. The email address is right there.

I love the idea that there's a shadowy cabal of Court Lane residents that is secretly controlling local and London government.

Shrieker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think that now is a good time for this space to > move away from being a stuffy old bowls green, and > should be set up as a bar and late night venue > with a decent license until 2 or 3am. This is what > young people want and need, and would be a good > addition to the area. > > No doubt lots of boring people would not like this > idea, so as an alternative, why not turn it into a > small car parks for people who drive to the area > to visit the common? Even I had to lol at this one. A more subtle hook would have probably reeled me in.

Was this actually a decision approved by Southwark? The article says it was TfL's plans.

You're denying there was any congestion before? It was all fake news? We can just sit back, do nothing and enjoy the free-flowing streets we all enjoyed before lockdown?

Christ, do we need yet another place for people to drink? Right opposite the kids playpark and a stone's throw from the Colicci concession that already sells booze? It's bad enough with dickheads wandering around the playpark with their bottles of beer and the widespread dumping of bottles, cans and related shite all over the place.

dougiefreeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The extension of the ULEZ > will do far more to clean up the air. Let's pretend all vehicles from day 1 of the ULEZ run on unicorn farts. How's that going to fix the congestion?

mrwb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Crime, unemployment and associated economic crisis > what we need to deal with. Car usage will > naturally decline as people leave. What population level will "naturally" take us down to an acceptable level of congestion and pollution in London? How long will that take?

London congestion and pollution is not a road supply problem. The only solution is to reduce the usage of cars. There are too many of us living in London and too many people who want to drive for it to be any other way.