march46

This thread has gone wildly off topic Isn’t there a separate thread on the Dulwich Park bridge?

No, drivers shouldn’t park there. It’s a bookable loading bay like the ones mentioned in this article. During peak footfall times the bay isn’t bookable / available - providing more space for pedestrians. Enforcement will be key.

Hmm do you have any evidence of longer bus journeys times? I don’t have any evidence, but my impression is East Dulwich Grove is much better during the times I travel along it by bus than it used to be.

Which road would that be?

Same here. East Dulwich Grove is much improved from what I can see. I also remember long queues back to Melbourne Grove being the norm pre-covid, whereas now they are the exception. I note the traffic seems to be worse at the weekend than during the week now, possibly related to lack of timed restrictions and no parking restrictions at the weekend.

This thread, like many others seems to have gone off topic.

You have no evidence that the report has disappeared, the only problem is that you can’t find it. It’s quite an insight into how conspiracy theories start.

This piece makes some interesting points about the potential impacts of driverless vehicles on pedestrians. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jun/12/driverless-cars-pedestrians-second-class-citizens

Do we have any evidence that they’ve ‘disappeared’, or just that @firstmate can’t find them but once could? Before you start off on another conspiracy theory it’s worth clarifying.

It’s not a pedestrian island, nor a safe place to cross. It’s an island to protect people cycling whilst they wait to turn right. Not where you would want children crossing the road.

Local businesses and Highways officers have agreed a solution to provide space for loading via double yellow lines. Maybe a CPZ isn’t needed but it sounded as though you were complaining at the loss of a few parking spaces - this suggests parking pressure is already high, if so a CPZ could be a solution for that.

Sounds as though a CPZ is already needed if the current parking pressure can’t cope with just a few spaces at one end of a road being removed.

The new zebra crossing makes it easier, and much safer for pedestrians to cross the road. It’s really great to see the council prioritising pedestrians as they should in the hierarchy of road users.

Here is the decision document. I’m sure we will all agree that it’s great Southwark is listening to businesses. “This request came from the businesses on Lordship Lane, informing Highways that they have large vehicles coming to collect and deliver goods from the business which causing an obstruction as vehicles are parked both sides of the entrance and opposite resulting into the vehicle having to block the whole road and cause obstruction.” “Officers attended site and met with the local business to discuss what would be the best solution to allowing the large vehicles to drop off and collect without obstructing and blocking the road off. As a result, it was agreed that double yellow lines will allow space for loading/unloading without obstructing the road.” a Officers attended site and met with the local business to discuss That isn’t true, so long as the driver is actually loading (ie not shopping nearby).

How do you know the businesses haven’t asked for this, so they have somewhere for their loading?

It’s so important in fact that the World Health Organisation is running a series of great Facebook ads on the importance of active travel and safer streets. https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1AZse8McEU/?mibextid=wwXIfr https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1Aj4BadBcc/?mibextid=wwXIfr

@Administrator seems they are still claiming to be linked to this forum. https://www.facebook.com/share/g/1AkCyCGAxg/?mibextid=wwXIfr

I hope witnesses are phoning 999 to report a crime in progress.

Suggest you try contacting the council's filming office Filming in Southwark | Southwark Council

This simply isn’t true for Southwark where over 60% of households do not own a car and 70% of respondents to the council’s Streets for People consultation say they want to see less traffic in Southwark.

An interesting read, which suggests much of WDAG’s 53 page report is based on inaccurate claims and not borne out of evidence and data. Great to see there is a group of supportive, local residents highlighting the benefits of the LTN. https://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2025/05/better-streets-west-dulwich-campaign-group-urges-people-to-focus-on-facts-not-fear/

For everyone who has looked at the plans, you’ll already know that the extended pavement outside M&S incorporates a bookable loading bay which has the benefit of not being bookable during peak hours - providing significantly more space and improved accessibility for the heavy footfall there is close to the station. Enforcement will obviously be key, as evidence to date suggests many drivers ignore the loading bay rules there and use it instead as short-term free parking. If you look at the plans you’ll see there is a new pedestrian crossing being installed.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/may/15/ignore-myths-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-ltn It’s encouraging to see this thoughtful opinion piece in the Guardian, which highlights evidence and data around Low Traffic Neighbourhoods. The inclusion of a photo of Dulwich Square is a nice touch as well. Whatever your view on the topic, it’s always helpful to have well-researched information to inform this discussion.

It’s hardly pro-pedestrian to be questioning the need for additional pedestrian crossings, especially given the high footfall of all 3 locations.

It’s very telling that the posters who are against LTNs and cycling infrastructure are also anti pedestrian improvements.