West Dulwich LTN Action Group - needs your support

[first mate]

It's a sad day when the party you trusted to stay true to its manifesto pledges does anything but. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

Its' your opinion. I would point out that they have made a clear commitment to their 'streets for people' strategy, which is well supported by the public.

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking-streets-and-transport/improving-streets-and-spaces/making-our-streets-greener/streets-for-people

Edited June 18 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

  On 18/06/2025 at 12:48, Earl Aelfheah said:

No. The problem is that you still refuse to differentiate between a consultation exercise and a referendum.

Expand  

No. The problem here is you refuse to differentiate between spin/propaganda and fact and you presented spin/propaganda as fact to suggest there was a majority in support of the Dulwich LTN in the consultation. Clearly there wasn't and the polar opposite was, in fact, true - that there was majority opposition to the LTN. We have seen these tactics so many times before from the pro-lobby - when exposed for feeding people incorrect, erroneous or down right misleading information when challenged they then try to divert attention onto something else. 

Again, it is this type of behaviour that makes many look more deeply into what is actually happening as they question whether the council and the active travel lobby are telling them the truth or are they just feeding people lies to suit their agenda. The more that decisions like that of the High Court goes against councils and their lobby friends the more evidence there is that some of us were absolutely right to question the motives, lawfulness and execution of these programmes by councils.

[Earl Aelfheah]

  On 18/06/2025 at 14:33, Rockets said:

the more evidence there is that some of us were absolutely right to question the motives, lawfulness and execution of these programmes

Expand  

Are you accusing Southwark council of breaking the law? You repeatedly insinuate it. If you have any evidence, then why not have the courage to just say it.

[ab29]

  On 18/06/2025 at 15:14, Earl Aelfheah said:

Are you accusing Southwark council of breaking the law? You repeatedly insinuate it. If you have any evidence, then why not have the courage to just say it.

Expand  

The consultations show almost 70% of residents voting against so-called ltn. And yet the council pushed through with changes residents opposed to in TWO consultations.

Where does the money wasted on these consultations coming from?

[Earl Aelfheah]

  On 18/06/2025 at 15:24, ab29 said:

The consultations show almost 70% of residents voting against so-called ltn

Expand  

No one 'voted' against an LTN. Again, not a referendum.

[Rockets]

  On 18/06/2025 at 15:14, Earl Aelfheah said:

  On 18/06/2025 at 14:33, Rockets said:

the more evidence there is that some of us were absolutely right to question the motives, lawfulness and execution of these programmes

Expand  

Are you accusing Southwark council of breaking the law? You repeatedly insinuate it. If you have any evidence, then why not have the courage to just say it.

Expand  

Come on @Earl Aelfheah - your not so subtle editing and manipulation of my sentence to try and create an angle to attack me on is really telling.....

[ab29]

  On 18/06/2025 at 15:25, Earl Aelfheah said:

No one 'voted' against an LTN. Again, not a referendum.

Expand  

Potato potato. I have absolutely voted against so/called ltn: I live on Lordship Lane, the traffic since the road blockade has been so much worst (air pollution, noise etc) - and so much longer to get to work! 

For those of us that still use public transport that is. Like, getting to King's Collage hospital in Denmark Hill is an hour / used to be 20min

  On 18/06/2025 at 15:25, Earl Aelfheah said:

No one 'voted' against an LTN. Again, not a referendum.

Expand  

You say "No one 'voted' against LTN - well, I have, in the consultations.

There was no referendum - this is semantics - let's have one then, see what ordinary people think!

[ab29]

@Earl Aelfheah funny because it now takes longer for patients to get to Kings at Denmark Hill?

[first mate]

@Earl Aelfheah said: Its' your opinion. I would point out that they have made a clear commitment to their 'streets for people' strategy, which is well supported by the public."

'Well supported', in your opinion. I would point out that multiple consultations have delivered clear majority opposition to key elements of their 'streets for people' policy namely LTNs and CPZ.

[Earl Aelfheah]

  On 18/06/2025 at 18:28, first mate said:

@Earl Aelfheah said: Its' your opinion. I would point out that they have made a clear commitment to their 'streets for people' strategy, which is well supported by the public."

'Well supported', in your opinion. I would point out that multiple consultations have delivered clear majority opposition to key elements of their 'streets for people' policy namely LTNs and CPZ.

Expand  

This was in response to your suggestion that the council haven’t stood by their manifesto. This is your opinion, but I personally disagree. It was titled ‘fairer, cleaner, safer’ and was very clear about their commitment to clean air and healthy streets and to building on the Southwark climate change citizens jury (which recommended amongst other things, a significant reduction in cars). They were returned with an increased majority.

Edited June 18 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

They did not in their manifesto state that they would achieve their commitment to clean air and healthy streets by imposing LTNs and CPZ on residents who, when consulted about these, said they did not want them. What they did say in their manifesto was they pledged to put residents at the heart of decisions to make changes to the area they lived in. 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

like I said, don’t vote for them 

[CPR Dave]

Agreed: don't vote for them and don't vote for their stupid LTN and CPZ cash cows. 

The Labour Party has proven itself to be incredibly economic with honesty and trustworthiness. 

They seem to be slippery snakes from top to bottom. Can't trust any of them. Worse even than Boris Johnson and he was allergic to the truth. 

Edited June 18 by CPR Dave

[Sue]

  On 18/06/2025 at 16:51, ab29 said:

@Earl Aelfheah funny because it now takes longer for patients to get to Kings at Denmark Hill?

Expand  

From what starting point?

I have been to Kings a few times recently, and the only things lengthening the journey time were temporary roadworks.

[Rockets]

  On 18/06/2025 at 19:26, first mate said:

They did not in their manifesto state that they would achieve their commitment to clean air and healthy streets by imposing LTNs and CPZ on residents who, when consulted about these, said they did not want them. What they did say in their manifesto was they pledged to put residents at the heart of decisions to make changes to the area they lived in. 

Expand  

I am pretty sure the letters CPZ and LTN were nowhere near their manifesto. There was no mention of anything to do with transport or active travel in the documents Labour pushed through our door….in fact they were more concerned with telling people how awful Boris was and how a vote for them was a vote against the government….I suspect they may return to local issues this time round but they will no doubt proceed with caution. A protest vote against the government would be funny this time round!

[Guest]

  On 18/06/2025 at 20:32, Sue said:

From what starting point?

I have been to Kings a few times recently, and the only things lengthening the journey time were temporary roadworks.

Expand  

Do you use the 42 to get there?

[Sue]

  On 19/06/2025 at 10:19, Kathleen Olander said:

Do you use the 42 to get there?

Expand  

No. That would be a very long way round to get to Kings for  for anybody starting at East Dulwich, surely?

I use a 40, 176 or 185 - whatever comes first.

[Guest]

  On 19/06/2025 at 22:05, Sue said:

No. That would be a very long way round to get to Kings for  for anybody starting at East Dulwich, surely?

I use a 40, 176 or 185 - whatever comes first.

Expand  

No, if you work or live on EDG in East Dulwich you would probably get the 42 which has been slowed up by the closure of DV junction.

This is the problem with the "I'm alright Jack" attitude nowadays.

[march46]

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. 

Edited June 20 by march46

[Sue]

  On 20/06/2025 at 10:23, march46 said:

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. 

Expand  

Yes, I've had no problems along there when getting a 37.

  On 20/06/2025 at 10:12, Kathleen Olander said:

No, if you work or live on EDG in East Dulwich you would probably get the 42 which has been slowed up by the closure of DV junction.

This is the problem with the "I'm alright Jack" attitude nowadays.

Expand  

If you are near the Lordship Lane end of EDG, it would surely be quicker to get a bus from Lordship Lane than get a 42.

More choice of buses and a quicker journey to KCH.

No idea what "I'm alright Jack" has to do with anything.  Lordship Lane is the main thoroughfare for East Dulwich, and I would guess that most people in SE22 live within easy reach of it.

The 484 also goes to the hospital.

Edited June 20 by Sue

[cwjlawrence]

The current duration to get the 42 bus from Tessa Jowell Health Centre to Kings Hospital via North Dulwich is 11mins.   In rush hour traffic at 08:00 on a Monday morning (and 17:00 on a Friday), it is 15 mins.

11mins to travel 1.9 miles is a speed of c10.5MPH.  The average speed of a bus in London in 2023-2024 was 9.27mph.  

@Kathleen Olander - you literally are alright Jack!   Your bus to Kings is rapid.