snowy

Ffs. It says it on the web page of the report.

Unless suggesting voting for Bailey is an April Fool?

Bailey wouldn?t have the authority as Mayor to remove LTNs. They?re a Local Authority scheme which the mayor has no control over. He also has very little chance of being elected.

ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This forum is for residents of Dulwich and this > specific thread for people from Goose Green area - > you live in neither. It?s not though. Read the first post in the About this Forum subsection.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It also seems to suggest that the council > forecasted 100 hangars for the 20/21 financial > year and only managed to install 55. > > As I have been saying for some time the council > seems unable to put the most basic infrastructure > in place to support its strategic objectives - it > has put the cart before the horse with the LTNs > and should have been spending more time, money and > effort installing bike hangars to satiate the > demand for the ability for residents to store > bikes than cameras to close off Dulwich Village. > > It's really quite damning. You remember there was a little pandemic going on, so staff were probably furloughed? That seems to be reflected in the delivery timeline graphic Glad to see you support the multi million investment (?8m if I?ve got my maths right).

Does that suggest that 2000 people in the Goose Green ward alone have requested a cycle hangar place? And that there?s a waiting list of over 8000 people across the borough for existing hangars, with just under half of that in wards around east Dulwich? There?s a comment to the diagrams that seems to say that they?re looking at new ways of tracking requests for cycle hangars as the demand is so high.

Concerned2021 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I found the minutes for the Lewisham Healthy > Streets schemes. Unbelievable that a scheme that > has such a massive impact on our lives and > infrastructure was decided by a few cyclists and > council officials. The Feb minutes indicate that > the consultation in Lewisham will only include > those inside the LTN. Basically it?s a stitch up. > > > https://lewishamcyclists.org.uk/wp-content/uploads > /2021/02/Meeting-Record-20210217.pdf Unless I?m reading them incorrectly, those are the minutes of Lewisham Cycling which mentions he Healthy Streets scheme

Choked Up is calling on the mayoral candidates to dramatically improve air quality along the capital?s major roads, the so-called ?red routes?, which make up 5% of London?s roads but carry a third of its traffic. Choked Up co-founders, from left, Nyeleti Brauer-Maxaeia, Anjali Raman-Middleton, Destiny Boka Batesa. Photograph: Martin Godwin/The Guardian They are calling for a reduction in goods vehicle and private car use, and a renewed focus on ?a world-class walking and cycling network, as well as affordable and accessible zero-emission public transport?.

For the policy geeks amongst us, the Parliament Transport committee is on today as part of their Reforming Public Transport inquiry: https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/f4a70a38-f9ff-4284-b1ff-b710bcc256a8 Including the Federation of Small Businesses advocating road pricing.

Thanks for pointing out you don?t really understand peer review!

Hmm, who to believe more - Professor Aldred, publisher of 25 peer reviewed papers at the university of Westminster and winner of the European Social Research Council award for ?outstanding impact in public policy? or Rockets off the internet?

But one that?s not often recommended by traffic planners eg https://www.bathnes.gov.uk/services/streets-and-highway-maintenance/road-safety/traffic-schemes/one-way-streets ?Many streets suffer from rat-running or high traffic volumes and may benefit from the introduction of this type of control, but it is likely that: Some traffic will simply be diverted onto other less suitable streets The new one-way street may attract more traffic albeit in the remaining direction Residents may have to access their street by an alternative and less convenient route which may involve the use of other neighbouring streets Traffic speeds may increase due to drivers' perception that there is no opposing traffic Without physical traffic calming there may be an increase in accidents and their severity Some, particularly short sections of one-way street are likely to be contravened by drivers thereby requiring police enforcement.?

Tell me who just said this Keane: "There's no question - none - that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day."

Given that Jay Rayner also used to post on Urban 75, I?m not sure trolley would be welcomed there either.

And this doesn?t bode well: https://www.rha.uk.net/getmedia/a17d600a-13f1-4034-b15e-ba021df01bd0/The-Rt-Hon-Michael-Gove-MP-1st-February-2021.pdf.aspx

That sounds a little bit Aled?s iPad

That comment reads like the pavements are ok for you and therefore fine for everyone else. Disabled People?s organisations and charities like Age Concern have long complained about the poor state of pavements, tripping hazards, cars illegally parked on them etc. Pavements can also be mixed use eg pedestrians, cyclists in more mixed use streets.

Textbook cakeism

You do realise they?re tested before and with more rapid tests on the day?

Really? Try crossing Vauxhall bridge on a bike at rush hour - the current infrastructure of cycle lanes and phased lights is already very very busy.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Could Southwark Council be accused of structural > discrimination... I think so. > https://twitter.com/rosamund_elsfdn/status/1350906 > 689969598471?s=21 Hmm wasn?t he suspended from the Labour Party for saying that ?there no basis for the Jewish race?? His paper is on Liveable Streets - which are slightly separate from the LTN implementation - liveable streets was a Tower Hamlets / TFL initiative.

We will have re-entered the EU before any of that gets built.

Trinnydad Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > snowy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > It?s a different view, and an idiotic one. > > I guess you are too young have been around in the > immediate post WW2 period to appreciate the > sentiments then. This snip from Wiki might help > you understand the ant-war sentiment at the > time...... > > ""The ECSC was first proposed by French foreign > minister Robert Schuman on 9 May 1950 as a way to > prevent further war between France and Germany. He > declared his aim was to "make war not only > unthinkable but materially impossible"[3] which > was to be achieved by regional integration, of > which the ECSC was the first step."" > > The ECSC morphed into the Common Market (a very > sensible idea) however the dreamers in Brussels > wanted to fast track towards political integration > so they morphed it in to the European Community > and then further into the European Union. > > So it's origins were deeply rooted in anti-war > feelings and historic resentment (particularly in > France) against the British. Hence de Gaule's oft > repeated "Non". > > So not as idiotic as you might think. Churchill proposed the Council of Europe in 1946 - you can read that speech online citing Aristide Briand as part of the inspiration- due to his work on the Locarno Treaties. So yes, I think your interpretation is blinkered.

It?s a different view, and an idiotic one.

n dulwich northerner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And no mention of bad road layouts causing > congestion and delays to emergency services. Except that the London Ambulance Service just told the London Assembly that LTNs had no impact on response times: unless you know something different: