DulwichCentral

With respect Heartblock - I may have missed your suggestions / alternatives to LTNs to reduce motor traffic. I am genuinely interested to know what they are? Would you mind posting again?

There has been modal shift in Dulwich - of course some here will disagree but I see it on a daily basis during school run. And I saw on Twitter it's possible that traffic on some parts of EDG have actually reduced. I don't see a massive increase there - as I have said before - no doubt you'll disagree because of what you see on a daily basis. Fair enough. So it's a matter of opinion - what you see and what I see. But if it's not possible to instantly install everything Rockets suggests due to lack of ??? - and you don't want LTNs either - then it seems the only other option is to do nothing? That's definitely not going to do anything urgently to help the climate crisis is it?

@Rockets wrote: 'you need road pricing, investment in public transport, segregated bike lanes, proper infrastructure to support modal shift, a commitment to embrace electric vehicles and the infrastructure needed to support it' Sounds good but how are you going to get all this in place urgently in a climate crisis from a council with reduced funding, and a government who seem to be relying on the 'market' to get us to net zero? Hopefully Southwark will use some of the money they've raised in fines on improving infrastructure to support modal shift. And maybe One Dulwich could donate their fundraiser to the council to help put all this in place instead of opposing what can be done in current circumstances?

peckhamside Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well said, I was thinking extending the congestion > zone to south circular may be the answer, this > would discourage through traffic from outside the > ss while residents would only pay a small annual > fee which anyone sensible would think was worth > it. Well said. If only everyone against the LTNs put their efforts into something constructive like this.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You are deliberately conflating One Dulwich's > timed restrictions lobbying versus the only > reasonable option they were presented by the > council in their flawed review process. There was an option to select 'modify existing measures' and a box to fill in suggestions for modifications. But One Dulwich told their supporters to select 'remove all measures' because they're prepared to jeopardise the whole scheme just to get what they want.

@Artemis - my point is that of the 2000 people signed up to One Dulwich it is unlikely they are all fully aware what One Dulwich actually want ie timed restrictions with permits **for those living in Dulwich Village**. It's not unreasonable to assume many of the 2000 are people who would drive through the area and are annoyed by the fines - do they realise that by supporting the One Dulwich agenda they would still get fined? Presumably @rockets supports the 'One Dulwich alternative scheme' which the council have rejected as dangerous and confusing and doesn't mind that a large proportion of the 2000 supporters are unwittingly signed up to still being fined.

ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "They want restrictions *WITH PERMITS* for > themselves." - eh?? > > I live on Lordship Lane, a very noisy and very > polluted road. I have to put up with increased > traffic, air pollution and noise because people on > Calton Ave are too posh to put up with five > vehicles passing down their precious road, having > several cars and amazon deliveries daily! Yes One Dulwich people who live on some of the wealthiest quietest streets in Dulwich Village want timed restrictions with permits for themselves - unbelievable isn't it! So selfish. Not sure where you get your 5 vehicles a day figure from. Before the measures there was gridlock from one end to the other up to five hours a day on Calton Avenue, Townley Road, Dulwich Village, and Court lane - for YEARS. Angry drivers overtaking at speed and pulling out onto Townley road on the wrong side of the road. Thousands of schoolchildren using this route. Oh and the One Dulwich alternative scheme they submitted to the council has been deemed dangerous and confusing to drivers which would incur even MORE fines! Ask them if they care about that?

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DC One fact is indisputable. The Dulwich Village > LTNs have made life even better for those in the > wealthiest, greenest part of Southwark. One Dulwich; the people opposing the LTNs who are on the residents associations of the wealthiest streets in Dulwich do not think the LTNs have made their lives even better - they are totally affronted that they are inconvenienced by the LTNs. That is why they have conjured up a campaign to get other people to oppose the LTNs. They want restrictions *WITH PERMITS* for themselves. They even submitted a proposal for this to the council whilst telling people to select remove all measures. The cheek of it is astounding.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Exactly....I think living in a gated road may > diminish one?s common sense? Maybe? You mean a gated community like the anti-LTN 'One Dulwich' want? They've been campaigning for timed restrictions with **residents permits** all along - since the beginning of the very long consultation OHS since 2019 which they now deny ever happened - even though they were there at the meetings! It beggars belief! Then - because they still haven't got their own way - they stamp their feet and tell people to select 'remove all measures' in the council survey - whilst STILL campaigning for their own little Gated Community. What they want is restrictions which would cause the SAME issues they claim the current scheme causes - EXCEPT with no inconvenience to themselves - so they can still drive round Dulwich in their massive SUVs. Then - to top it all - I see their latest poster says 'We've been conned' - the irony! The sooner people wake up to the reality that a small elite group in the heart of Dulwich Village are doing the conning the better.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DulwichCentral Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > sally buying Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > DulwichCentral Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > legalalien Wrote: > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > ----- > > > > > In hindsight, perhaps we > > > > > should have done before and after counts > in > > > the > > > > > bike sheds at the various schools? > > > > > > > > Cycle sheds at Charter North Dulwich have > > been > > > > recently rebuilt about 4 times bigger - and > > are > > > > now overflowing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://twitter.com/CleanAirDulwich/status/1435230 > > > > > > > > > > 921565908992 > > > > > > How many bikes did the sheds hold in the > first > > > place when they were built? > > > > > > Without knowing this the above has no > meaning. > > > > > > As I said in my original post - the bike sheds > > were made about four times bigger than they > > originally were. > > You could count the bikes in the picture which > are > > under the storage area and divide by four to > get > > the original > > capacity. Bearing in mind it's now four times > > bigger - and overflowing. > > > > I thought that meaning was pretty clear in my > > original post? > > > And this is brilliant - it is great to see more > kids cycling to and from school but the council > can only claim this as a victory for LTNs if those > children were being driven previously. Given the > catchment area of Charter North is very small I > suspect the majority of that transition to cycling > is from walking - which is not what the LTNs were > designed for (well, maybe the cycle lobby would > disagree but let's not go there!). Ha! nice try to spot the 'negative' @rockets ;)

sally buying Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DulwichCentral Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > legalalien Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > In hindsight, perhaps we > > > should have done before and after counts in > the > > > bike sheds at the various schools? > > > > Cycle sheds at Charter North Dulwich have been > > recently rebuilt about 4 times bigger - and are > > now overflowing. > > > > > https://twitter.com/CleanAirDulwich/status/1435230 > > > 921565908992 > > How many bikes did the sheds hold in the first > place when they were built? > > Without knowing this the above has no meaning. As I said in my original post - the bike sheds were made about four times bigger than they originally were. You could count the bikes in the picture which are under the storage area and divide by four to get the original capacity. Bearing in mind it's now four times bigger - and overflowing. I thought that meaning was pretty clear in my original post?

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In hindsight, perhaps we > should have done before and after counts in the > bike sheds at the various schools? Cycle sheds at Charter North Dulwich have been recently rebuilt about 4 times bigger - and are now overflowing.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Interesting because I don?t relate to what DC says > at all, as I?ve never had a driving licence. My > partner does but has never made any unnecessary > short trips in London - what?s the point when you > can walk or take public transport? I say that not > to be smug, but because I think there is a real > difference in attitude between those who have done > those trips - the kind of evangelical attitude > that comes with being a reformed smoker, for > example; and those who haven?t and don?t see the > point of attempted nudges to behaviour that have > perceptible negative effects. We all come at these > things from our own personal perspectives. Am I > being harsh? Of course you're entitled to your personal perspective - but wow! - this strikes me as incredibly smug. Smugger than a reformed smoker to use your analogy; so your behaviour has been so impeccable all along that you can't relate to anyone else's efforts at changing their behaviour?

I used to make unnecessary car journeys. - I drove to Lordship Lane (a 10 minute walk or 5 minute bike ride) and got stressed and frustrated I couldn't park. - I used to drive to a nursery in West Dulwich (a 30 minute walk or 15 minute bike ride) I could have cycled with a child seat if I had felt safe and confident enough but I didn't then. - I always drove to Sainsburys (a 10 minute walk or 5 min bike ride). I'm amazed how much I can fit in panniers on my bike and with a rucksack I can do a really big shop if I need to. - We used to drive to the Rosendale pub in West Dulwich (a 30 minute walk or 10/15 minute bike ride) - leave the car there overnight then walk to pick it up in the morning. - We even drove to Bel Air House (a 10 minute walk or 5 min bike ride) and then picked the car up in the morning! - And we used to drive into central London sometimes for 'convenience' except it wasn't. Got stuck in traffic on the way there. Paid a fortune for parking. Got stuck in traffic on the way back. Ended up anything but convenient. All totally unnecessary car journeys. Before I get judged for judging people I'm not judging anyone. Just sharing my experience. And I'm not saying everyone can do this because of course for some it's not possible. But I am sure there are many more who could give up short car journeys like this - even more than those who have done so already - if they feel safe enough to cycle instead, or get into the habit of allowing time to walk as many of my friends have said they've done since the measures have been put in place.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 18 months in and there is not a sign that what you > say happens is happening. In fact, there isn't an > LTN anywhere that has not displaced traffic from > one set of roads to another - the traffic doesn't > evaporate it displaces. > > LTNs are failing. That much is abundantly clear. The Southwark Council data shows traffic down 10% across the area - 16,000 vehicles less per day across the area. Maybe One Dulwich and their various off-shoots have got secret ways of measuring traffic they think are more sophisticated and accurate than the council's 24/7 monitoring strips on all roads in the area. I do recall seeing one of their members standing by the roadside with a pen and a clipboard. Maybe he is their source of information.

I didn't say all that. You did.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Most of those huge metal boxes with leather sofas > can be seen parked on Calton, Court and Melbourne, > I walk down those roads often and always amazed at > the huge Range Rovers, BMWs etc. In the case of > Calton, usually another car parked on the drive > and in the case of Gilkes a car on the drive, one > on the road, one in the garage and one parked at > the second home in .... Southwold, The Lakes, > Norfolk...... @heartblock why don't you take this up with your fellow anti-LTNer Abe_Froeman who says a luxury car makes you 'appreciate all the good things in life'? You never know - he might even be a neighbour living on EDG

Ah but as long as they're sitting on 'en suite leather sofas' in their metal boxes then according to Abe_Froeman they are having a whale of a time! Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Duliwch central, if you got a better job that > helped you afford your own 2T metal box with en > suite leather sofas I think you would appreciate > all of the good things in life as well as in > electric cars.

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Duliwch central, if you got a better job that > helped you afford your own 2T metal box with en > suite leather sofas I think you would appreciate > all of the good things in life as well as in > electric cars. Ah yes - thanks for reminding me @Abe_froeman - I forgot to add: Now it is fashionable for humans to buy the biggest metal box they can afford - even if they have crippled themselves financially to do so - because it makes them feel powerful when sitting in long queues of other metal boxes knowing that they have superior 'en suite leather sofas' to sit on. Weirdly in some cases these humans have evolved to feel a false sense of being more attractive to the opposite sex whilst sat in their metal box. https://nypost.com/2020/02/21/men-who-buy-luxury-cars-are-probably-big-jerks-study-finds/

Humans have evolved into getting from A to B in a two tonne metal box with two sofas in it - often just by themselves - sat there looking p****d off because they're stuck - surrounded by thousands of other people doing the same thing. Many could walk, cycle or use public transport instead. I'm going out now. Have a nice evening :)

Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DC I see you've gone down the "nuclear power > station doom" route > > We're developing better wind, solar and tidal > power options so whilst one or two power stations > would possibly be needed, we will have other > sources. > > The front garden issue really isn't, chargers will > be everywhere so the need to have a drive or > garden isn't going to be a great driver and with > the newer generation of fast charges, cars can be > topped up quickly then moved on so someone else > can use it. > > Just because you're able to cycle don't expect > everyone to give up their car and toe the council > line. > > Cycling, walking, pubici transporter and motorised > vehicles should all be considered part of the > solution and not just one size suits all as you > seem to be preaching. > > Not everyone, as I've pointed out to you before, > can give up their car and some really need it (or > are you still pushing electric mobility scooters > for all 😱) Where did I say everyone can give up their car??????

'electric cars may be less a case of green-washing than LTNs' really? Despite the reasons for them not being a panacea above, which you seem to agree with. Some argue that it's better to spread the pollution around equitably than to block roads to motor vehicles to enable active travel and behaviour change. Would they also argue against flood barriers - and prefer to push the flood around so it hits more houses more equitably? People can either get on board with drastic measures to reduce car usage - and push for more which takes time - or not.

See above (and now again below) @Rockets - I posted this earlier maybe you missed it? To keep reiterating the key issue is pollution when you're fully aware that road safety, congestion, CO2 emmissions, climate change, social equity etc are all part of the discussion here in relation to transport seems to be what others here would call 'sealioning'. If all new cars sold were electric, it would still take 15-20 years to replace the world?s fossil fuel car fleet. [www.research.ox.ac.uk] and... 'Let's be conservative and say that on average a charger will suck 5kW of power, which would still take hours to recharge an average car. Scale that up to 35 million cars and we will need additional 18GW of power to supply them all. A brand spanking new nuclear power station that is being built is Hinkley at a price of $26,5 billion will produce only 3.2GW once it's opened in 2025. The UK alone would need seven Hinkley nuclear power stations to meet their EV power demand. [drivetribe.com] and... 'Electric car push puts front gardens in peril, Sacrificing grass and flowers to build chargepoints is ?paving the way to disaster? The Times And others have pointed out road deaths and obesity would still be a problem. As would congestion. All good reasons that electric cars are not the panacea don't you think?

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I saw that the same tactics were used in Munich a > few weeks ago around what used to be the Frankfurt > Motor Show (which is now in Munich). Protestors > blockaded all of the motorways and roads around > Munich to protest at the motor show coming to the > city and they caused utter chaos but someone > pointed out to them that there was not a single > petrol or diesel car launched at the show - > everything was electric. But even so... If all new cars sold were electric, it would still take 15-20 years to replace the world?s fossil fuel car fleet. https://www.research.ox.ac.uk/article/2021-06-14-obsessing-over-electric-cars-is-impeding-the-race-to-net-zero-more-active-travel-is-essential and... 'Let's be conservative and say that on average a charger will suck 5kW of power, which would still take hours to recharge an average car. Scale that up to 35 million cars and we will need additional 18GW of power to supply them all. A brand spanking new nuclear power station that is being built is Hinkley at a price of $26,5 billion will produce only 3.2GW once it's opened in 2025. The UK alone would need seven Hinkley nuclear power stations to meet their EV power demand. https://drivetribe.com/p/if-all-cars-were-electric-how-many-DfGKxKl2Sp6CUGsxOAWepg?iid=RicDdg4LQSmZQIp4j8Anpw and... 'Electric car push puts front gardens in peril, Sacrificing grass and flowers to build chargepoints is ?paving the way to disaster? The Times

P3girl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ealing anti-LTN group mustered around 3,000 folk > to each of their (legal) protests. Dulwich > mustered only 150! > > Where did Dulwich get it wrong? > > 1. They had two different oganisations - Dulwich > Alliance and One Dulwich. > 2. The target audience were confused by this > 3. Both DA and OD have websites which have no > focus. The operators were nameless and > uncontactable. > 4. No one was responsible for handle different > tasks eg media, banners, protests, correspondence > etc > 5. They appeared to only want to raise funds. The > never said what money had been spent on. > 6. Comments are unattributed eg by "a local > resident" or by " a local business" > 7. Any decision to be made had to be a unanimous > one. > 8. They resisted all suggestions that demos should > take place at Tooley St, Southwark Town Hall, LL > or Rye Lane. > 9. Failed to dispel the view that they were just a > bunch of toffs from Dulwich Village. > 10.Failed to use social Media effectively. > 11. Acted like a debating society that issued the > occasional verbose newsletter which regurgitated > all the usual arguments. > 12. To cap it all, they even replaced the plants > that had been vandalised in the planters. > > No doubt I could add more, but Dulwich can achieve > what Ealing did - provided DA and OD change tack. Hi @P3girl - to add to your list they also got it wrong on the following: 13. Producing out of touch, culturally insensitive posters with slogans such as ?All Streets Matter?. 14. Telling everyone to respond to the consultation with ?Return it to the original state? yet also submitting proposals which retain the camera timed closures. 15. Claiming to support the council?s aims around active travel etc. yet submitted an alternative plan for Calton/Court Lane junction which was judged to ?not meet many objectives in the councils Movement Plan 2019? by independent consultants. 16. Position Age Speaks as a new, separate group, whilst it?s obvious to us all it?s mostly the same people ? and says as much on their website ?We are a group of older people within One Dulwich who have banded together to amplify our voice.?