first mate

If the complete school has been up and running all year then I stand corrected. I was not aware all years and classes had been functioning earlier this year? Building work is still ongoing?

Thanks northern, apologies if I had misunderstood. Is it your view we will not see much of a difference in September then or have I misunderstood you on that score as well?

Heartblock, that is what I thought. I guess we will get a much better sense of LTN impact once schools are back in full swing. heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No Charter has not been running most of the Summer > at capacity, so the school run in September will > cause idling traffic again on ED Grove.

So, ignoring what could be construed as a deliberate attempt to get this thread lounged perhaps we can return to the subject of LTNs in the ED area. On another thread it was suggested that Charter has been running much of the summer so we should not expect much increase in traffic when schools return in September. I'm interested in views on this?

No, HP not an argument against LTNs per se but that using limited funds to routinely fix poor paving may be a better use of money than some other projects associated with LTNs, also noting that if LTNs are to work properly you need pavements that are not trip hazards, especially for the elderly and those less physically robust/mobile. hpsaucey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > first mate Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > '> Potholes in roads are less likely to cause > > pedestrians to trip and injure themselves, > isn't > > the idea of LTNs to increase walking?.' > > Yes - but the point of my comparison stands in > that its not an argument against having LTNs - > which I assumed is what you were trying to say? > > Re: > 'Glad you > > agree pavements need fixing and this is probably > a > > better use of council funds than are other > > ventures, mentioned in earlier parts of the > > thread.' > > Yes pavements need fixing but please don't use > this to misinterpret my words as saying this would > be a better use of funding than 'other ventures'. > > > > 'Fixing does not need to be part of LTN' > > planning is should be belt and braces. > Of course - but identifying problem areas would be > a good part of planning an LTN wouldn't it - > whether road or pavement. > > HP

Potholes in roads are less likely to cause pedestrians to trip and injure themselves, isn't the idea of LTNs to increase walking?. Glad you agree pavements need fixing and this is probably a better use of council funds than are other ventures, mentioned in earlier parts of the thread. Fixing does not need to be part of LTN planning is should be belt and braces.

The pavements are in a terrible state in places. No point having LTNs if areas of pavement are a trip hazard. legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I?m happy for the council to stop funding other > things that most people would consider ?nice to > have? rather than necessary at a time when by > their own admission things are tight financially. > I don?t think expressing a preference for money to > be put into food banks and schools rather than > spent on relatively high brow concerts in the > leafy part of the borough has any ?chip on > shoulder? overtones at all. Perhaps your sneering > at Daily Mail readers says more about you, > together with earlier comments about they type of > people who live in Bromley...

We have yet to see if Tell Grove and Melbourne Grove South (just behind the barrier)become drop off points for Charter in September. The layout of the roads at that point allows cars to turn quite easily. I do agree that dropping off babies and toddlers would take more time.

malumbu, stop it!

And that "no way of knowing" is part of the problem. It will be argued, as you have done, that clients will be local, so no problem. Is there really local demand for a super-creche? My guess, and it is as much a guess as yours, is that a significant proportion will be users out of area or far enough to drop off in the car.

Yes, but the issue of traffic build up is relevant. If, as seems, this is a big business I hardly think users will be entirely local and arriving only on foot and bicycle. Trains are being cut and buses held up by traffic build up on main roads partly through LTNs. With a large school and medical centre only yards away, I understand resident concerns. Plus, if there is such a huge demand for nursery schools in the area why do the smaller nurseries feel threatened?

I do wholeheartedly agree with this. SUVs seem to be expressions of vanity and status; OTT for city living.

HP, I think it is to do with sound. The idea is that the trees, on a few sides, act as a sound barrier.

😀 Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Strangely, a lot of them seem to have animal based > names! > > Not always an accurate pointer...

A menagerie of trolls. Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Unfortunately there seems to have been a plethora > of people registering for the forum in the last > couple of weeks who seem to be here just to > antagonise and be unpleasant. Strangely, a lot of > them seem to have animal based names!

I didn't read the complaint as 'moaning about' and being 'against other people enjoying themselves', it is about the negative impact noise has had on the other poster...and has been clearly qualified as keeping young children awake and interfering with the other poster's ability to work. These are reasonable concerns. Sorry if you really cannot see that. Anyway, it has been reported by a number of people and perhaps something can be sorted for next year. Perhaps the festival or council could fund noise cancelling headphones for those who request them. Earplugs alone are not that effective. Roachy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > And that is the selfish response that typifies > the > > average festival goer it seems. Not against the > > event for the last time, but think the location > is > > too close to people's houses, which it > definitely > > Selfish? Says the person who?s moaning that 10,000 > people are out enjoying their lives? when it?s you > who can?t handle any slight inconvenience. > > You typify the word miserable. If loud music for > 30 hours that finished at 10:30 every night has > triggered you so much I genuinely feel sorry for > you

What happened to consideration goes both ways? johnhcollins Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > yeknomyeknom Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Men peeing in all the bushes on the outskirts > of > > the park, constantly, even though there are > > plentiful toilets nearby with no visible > queues, > > is worse than the noise. Disgusting, flagrant > > selfishness. We?ve complained to Gala but not > a > > lot they can do other than provide plentiful > > toilets. > > you really need a hobby or something to occupy > your time

Rockets, James McAsh came on here and explained that re CPZ each road would 'decide' if it was to have CPZ or not. Of course, they had to do it that way or they would never have got the CPZ ball properly rolling, when they introduced CPZ round the station. Had they done it as a whole area thing, they'd never have managed the CPZ onslaught. Southwark saw no contradiction in actively encouraging car ownership for those living closest to the train station. Of course, however, when it suited them Southwark reneged on their own terms and decided to chop Melbourne Grove up and count it as two separate roads. Had they counted it as one road they could not have put in CPZ as the majority of residents were against CPZ. The Councillors also made a big deal about how vital it was to listen to minority voices, not just the majority view. So now I guess their plan is to invite people and children from all over the borough to have their say?

It is crazy. Artemis Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > geh Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > trains to London Bridge halved > > trains to Crystal Palace, stopped entirely > > what is going on, I have seen nothing from > either > > councillors or MP on these cuts. > > guess we are just supposed to suck it up > > Agreed. How are any attempts to encourage people > to move away from driving going to work if the > councils/government/TFL do not work together? > Reducing public transport options at the same time > as shutting roads is extraordinary. Is NO > consideration being taken for those who aren?t > able to cycle or walk to where they need to go?

Ah well, that's ok then.

I think I see what is happening here, it is to keep attacking people on a personal level but accuse them of doing the same in the hope others believe this is what is actually happening. Tiresome. Anyway, agree with Alice's point.

Hilarious response. It doesn't actually bother me...at all. I like loud music. However, I am able to step outside the limits of my own experience and empathise with the plight of those who feel differently from me. I can understand that for residents close by who do not share my tolerance for very loud music and who have other priorities and responsibilities beyond 'having fun' enduring this event for three days solid could be quite testing. johnhcollins Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > nah fully you need to learn to have more fun and > let things bother you less. this isn?t as much of > an inconvenience as you think it is

Well, many well informed posters, with a seemingly good handle on the data, beg to differ.

Thinking laterally, would it not be possible for the live event to be amplified through headphones the festival goer wears, that way saving resident's ears?