first mate

You have to pay a tenner each year to prove your address before pass is renewed.

Agree we are badly in need of independents to stand as as councillors. It is utterly clear that reps from major parties are too caught up in party politics and furthering national agendas. It does feel as though every person that signed the massive One Dulwich petition will not get fair representation while our local councillor went the extra mile prior to Covid to knock on doors and garner support for road closure.

You are charged ?10 annually for the over 60 pass.

Well this makes interesting reading. The deadline for deputations was 14th October. Two deputations will be heard re road closures. 1. Dulwich Village/College Road and Woodyard residents associations (road closures) 2. Clean Air for Dulwich (road closures) Is anyone aware of a petition by Clean Air for Dulwich? If so, where can it be viewed? How many signatures. Thing is, what about all the other road closures? Where is the representation for those? How is it these bodies who will have deputations got wind of it? The One Dulwich petition is mentioned as item 8 in the public agenda pack, but there seems to be no deputation and it seems as though the council has issued a written point by point response. Can anyone shed light on the process here? Why does a smaller residents association and a pro closure lobby get a proper hearing but not a 2,500 petition. In terms of the latter, is that now it as far as council process goes?

Precisely. The majority of journeys, say, half a mile are going to involve a rather steep hill. Were it a matter of flat ground everywhere for miles in all directions that would be different, but the hills are truly serious stuff and only the very fit will get up them on a regular basis. Much as some would like, this fact cannot just be airily dismissed. Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > @rockets. > > > > So 67% of car trips under 3 miles. I would > > describe that as 'significant'. > > > But can they all be walked or cycled? A 6 mile > roundtrip would be a significant distance for many > would it not - especially given Dulwich is > surrounded by significant hills on most sides? > > As I have said before I think you can make a dent > in the 35% shorter than 2kms but that's about it. > That leaves 60%+ that are most likely always going > to be done in a car. And I would be very > interested to know what TFL counts as a car > journey and whether private hire and taxis are > included with that.

Of course there were occasional road blocks, there are in many streets, it happens. However, I genuinely never noticed this to be a regular thing...not to the point it would be a real issue. Ditto frequent road rage incidents. It honestly does feel like you and I have been regular users of a completely different road rahrahrah. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lots of people used to walk down Melbourne Grove > to the station each day / evening (pre COVID... > remember that!) and I?m sure some at least will > remember how often it got blocked because (usually > a Jewsons lorry or similar) would not be able to > pass traffic trying to come the other way, or > there would be someone blocking the junction with > EDG / misjudging the turn. But it?s not worth > debating. Some will swear blind that congestion > didn?t exist pre- LTN, in the same way that > they?ll claim the closure of the south circular > would barely have been noticed 6 months ago.

P68 is the very last poster I think anyone would describe as hysterical, but keeping things personal rather than coming up with credible arguments does you no favours DKHB.

HahaHa, Shroedinger?s traffic. Love it. Dulwichgirl82 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Agree with this and I used to walk down > regularly. > > It was also a Schrodinger?s traffic:Simultaneously > awful requiring the road closure but has since > entirely disappeared since the temporary measures > causing no traffic displacement apparently. > > > rst mate Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > How odd, I don?t believe I have ever noticed > > Melbourne north regularly blocked or lots of > road > > rage incidents and over the years I have been > up > > down frequently.

How odd, I don?t believe I have ever noticed Melbourne north regularly blocked or lots of road rage incidents and over the years I have been up down frequently.

Interesting. This is reminiscent of issues that affected MGMP for years, after the practice was taken over by Concordia. Concordia and Hambleden have now taken over at TJHC.

Yes, I agree with that. Having a little river running through would be wonderful but probably incredibly expensive.

So if you pedestrianise part of LL and many side streets disallow traffic, how would you make necessary journeys that could not be undertaken via active travel or public transport?

Maybe, but so what? It is not unreasonable for a local business to use local roads to get from A-Z. I would hardly call it a cut through. The local business is construction and construction is a fact of life in the city. By far the biggest construction effort in the area is the Charter School and Health Centre. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > first mate Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The slight irony is that very large delivery > > vehicle may well be for the Charter School > build. > > > Or simply cutting through from the Jewsons next to > ED station.

The slight irony is that very large delivery vehicle may well be for the Charter School build.

Might it simply be that his destination and therefore route has changed?

Abe, no the condition was for deliveries to be on Lordship Lane, a condition which is not adhered to but vans seem smaller. I?d imagine deliveries are more difficult whichever route. However, the really telling thing is the way planning and council were clear that traffic levels were not a concern- a very different stance from the one adopted for OHS purposes.

It wasn?t so long ago, but certainly prior to Covid and OHS, that the council justified the opening of LL M&S by stating it would not produce an increase in traffic or parking since most people would use active travel; the council stated traffic levels and parking in local streets around M&S were really not an issue at all. Very hard to make head or tail of the ?official? narrative and ?evidence? on traffic. It is incredibly inconsistent.

?No ones saying cars should run freely anywhere, but I didn?t think we lived in a society where people?s health was considered collateral damage. The space for people to walk and cycle benefits some, the worsened traffic harms others.? This is the central contradiction. The stated aim is to reduce or even completely remove motorised vehicles because they are harming our health. In the meantime, it is viewed as completely acceptable to harm health by blocking or slowing down emergency services, actively harm the freedoms and well being of vulnerable sections of the community, cause major levels of stress by limiting necessary journeys and modes of transport. If you object you are labelled a ?petrol head?, ?entitled? and told you have a ?choice?. I am tired of the myopia and fanaticism of the pro cycling, pro CPZ lobby and most of all this dogmatic council. The current interventions are not working overall. Proper consultation is needed immediately. Lets have properly considered and monitored interventions for the good of the many, not the few.

I think there is a longstanding relationship between sectors of the Labour Party in particular and a stated aim to rid London of private car ownership by 2030. The socialist hue of labour councils and councillors may be a factor in how fanatically they pursue this agenda see https://www.fleetpoint.org/carandvannews/car/privately-owned-cars-should-be-banned-from-london-by-2030/ It seems Southwark has signed up to this agenda with zeal and cycling organisations will have been useful allies and organs of promotion. Hence S?wark Cyclists central role as a ?stakeholder? and consultee.

In our case the startling similarity between Southwark? HLS scheme and current LTN measures, the former already being pushed well before Covid struck, begs a few questions.

Sue is quite right to complain. Complacency and hoping things will all work out is not the way to go. It seems the result Sue was seeking is better training of delivery staff by Tesco. At no point does she ask for the guy to get sacked. The notion that we should not complain if we witness irresponsible and potentially risky behaviour is wrongheaded.

Me too.

What a surprise. The sudden price hike, I mean.

Do the Council always shut down petitions once a certain number is achieved? I guess they ran the risk of many more people signing and an even bigger figure would be bad PR for their LTN approach.

Oh lord, he is the very last person you?d want involved.