LTN BooHoo

Artemis Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LTN BooHoo Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > heartblock Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > No...LTNBoo, I said we were not invited to a > > > private zoom meeting, with the council, > which > > was > > > only sent to a gated community so they could > > help > > > Southwark with future changes. Please don?t > > twist > > > my words. > > > > > > It does seem that people on this forum who do > > not > > > like us on roads that have seen an increase > in > > > pollution and traffic due to LTNs > (independent > > > pollution monitoring and Southwark?s own > > released > > > data), highlighting these facts and asking > for > > > something to be done about it, cannot help > > > themselves with twisting what we write and > say, > > to > > > fit their agenda of maintaining their > > privileged > > > lifestyle. > > > > > > I only hope if that I lived in a 2 million > 5-6 > > > bedroom house in a gated community, I would > be > > a > > > bit more thoughtful about a family, with a > > young > > > child in a one bedroom 3rd floor flat with no > > > garden who does not own a car and has to walk > > with > > > her child along a polluted and traffic bound > > road > > > every school morning. > > > > > > Maybe a house swap for a month...and let?s > see > > how > > > the ?important people ? in the gated roads > > > feel.... > > > > When was this meeting you are referring to? > > > > You discuss a ?gated community? but this is > > exactly what One Dulwich is pushing for. They > > advocate for a resident exemption permit system > > that would allow residents to drive freely in > and > > out of their neighbourhood past your home. If > > they can?t have permits they want to remove all > > restrictions and go back to what we had. How > does > > that help you? How will this help the > generations > > that follow? > > > > And I am being thoughtful about those who are > less > > privileged. As I said it is wealthy people who > own > > and drive cars so limiting their ability to > freely > > drive their heavy, oversized SUVs is a good > place > > to start. Walk around Dulwich there are plenty > of > > homes with multiple cars in the drive with ? > Clean > > Air for All? posters up. I am asking ?clean > air > > for who? and ?clean air how?? > > > > And as an end note - the majority of LTNs in > > Southwark are in less privileged areas. > > Picking up on your ?end note?, Burbage Road, Court > Lane Gardens and Dulwich Village are three of the > five most ?expensive? roads in Southwark > (according to Zoopla figures in 2020) and come > within the LTNs. This is the East Dulwich Forum, > not the Southwark forum. We are questioning > whether the LTNs are equitable in this particular > area. The meeting you are referring to was with the chairs if residents associations. I have spoken to our chair and have been told that 2 people from Croxted were there. Not sure about other boundary roads as not everyone noted the road they were representing. Write to Councillor Williams for clarification instead of guessing. It is sad that the main point of restraining those with cars from driving is being missed. It is really simple; those with cars drive through poorer areas. They have big, heavy polluting often high performance cars. Not difficult to understand. I?m going out now to buy a Porsche might as well join the club.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No...LTNBoo, I said we were not invited to a > private zoom meeting, with the council, which was > only sent to a gated community so they could help > Southwark with future changes. Please don?t twist > my words. > > It does seem that people on this forum who do not > like us on roads that have seen an increase in > pollution and traffic due to LTNs (independent > pollution monitoring and Southwark?s own released > data), highlighting these facts and asking for > something to be done about it, cannot help > themselves with twisting what we write and say, to > fit their agenda of maintaining their privileged > lifestyle. > > I only hope if that I lived in a 2 million 5-6 > bedroom house in a gated community, I would be a > bit more thoughtful about a family, with a young > child in a one bedroom 3rd floor flat with no > garden who does not own a car and has to walk with > her child along a polluted and traffic bound road > every school morning. > > Maybe a house swap for a month...and let?s see how > the ?important people ? in the gated roads > feel.... When was this meeting you are referring to? You discuss a ?gated community? but this is exactly what One Dulwich is pushing for. They advocate for a resident exemption permit system that would allow residents to drive freely in and out of their neighbourhood past your home. If they can?t have permits they want to remove all restrictions and go back to what we had. How does that help you? How will this help the generations that follow? And I am being thoughtful about those who are less privileged. As I said it is wealthy people who own and drive cars so limiting their ability to freely drive their heavy, oversized SUVs is a good place to start. Walk around Dulwich there are plenty of homes with multiple cars in the drive with ? Clean Air for All? posters up. I am asking ?clean air for who? and ?clean air how?? And as an end note - the majority of LTNs in Southwark are in less privileged areas.

Artemis Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yet some of the highest car ownership is within > the LTN roads - just take a walk down Calton > Avenue or Court Lane. Yes, I completely agree > that everyone should take individual > responsibility for sustainable travel choices. > But my question is: how is the current state of > affairs encouraging residents, and in particular > the residents of the LTN roads to make > ?sustainable travel choices?? I appreciate that > that?s the intention, but is it working? I use > the bus as my main form of transport, and it now > takes much longer than it used to to get anywhere, > as is demonstrated by the published figures. > Roads I regularly need to walk down are now jammed > with traffic and are less pleasant to walk down > because of pollution. I make sustainable travel > choices (and always have). The LTNs are not > working for me. They may be for you, LTN BooHoo > and northernmonkey, and you?re very fortunate in > that, and presumably fighting hard to maintain > your good fortune, which is understandable. But > please, rather than aggressively shouting down > anyone who does not share your view, recognise > that there are others whose lives have been made > significantly worse as a result of the LTNs. And > Rockets - you talk a massive amount of sense. Now that you have read the first link I copied Rocks in on here?s another. https://www.dropbox.com/s/qftfp2uq34z2u76/Burke%20CHANGE%20OPINIONS%20pdf%20download.pdf?dl=0 The key point Burke makes is that traffic volumes on main roads has actually fallen over the past decade and residential roads have absorbed the traffic. This has happened due to satnavs. Again there is data to support this. Is it working you ask? Not yet is the answer but it is starting to. We need to do more not less. We need to introduce more bus lanes and make cycling safer so more are encouraged to try it. Cycling is up. I see more cargo bikes and children on bikes than ever before. We need to limit off street and end user parking as well as CPZs. We need to discourage short journeys. How many people drive from the Village to the golf course? Ahh but they have heavy kit and there?s no bus! Well the golf course could triple their storage facilities and it?s not far to walk or cycle there. I am fast approaching 60 and typically cycle 60 km a week. I don?t expect others to do that but is 2-3km asking too much? The idea is that if some make appropriate travel choices this leaves room for people who really need to use their cars. Heavy traffic is not welcomed anywhere so we all need to work together. Affluent people own and drive cars because they can afford to. There are plenty of areas in Southwark with a low PTAL Score that is home to people on very low incomes who don?t have access to a car. Affluent people drive through these areas. People who live above shops can?t open their windows and it?s SUVs, delivery vans and yes buses stuck in traffic below. I don?t shout down anyone but I am increasingly frustrated by the moaning and misinformation. (Eg Heartblock above saying people who live on Croxted, EDG or LL have not been consulted. Not true) We have a climate emergency as so aptly demonstrated by the heat waves and flooding we are experiencing with increasing frequency. I just hope that the debate will turn away from ?I can?t? to ?together we can?.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LTN BooHoo Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > BellendenBear Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Do you think that ED parents drive their kids > > to > > > Kingsdale? I don?t think that?s the case. My > 12 > > > year old daughter goes there and all her > > friends > > > cycle or use public transport. Her primary > > school > > > friends ended up at 6 or 7 different > secondary > > > schools and the ones at state schools all > walk, > > > cycle or use public transport. > > > > > > The LTNs, while not being perfect, make it > > safer > > > for many kids to cycle to lots of schools. I > > have > > > been walking and cycling through Greendale to > > drop > > > kids at primary school for the past 8 years > and > > > the number of secondary school kids and > > families > > > with primary school kids cycling to school > has > > > increased massively since the LTNs on > Champion > > > Hill and in Dulwich Village were introduced. > I > > > don?t live in or next to an LTN, but the > > benefits > > > of them are felt more widely than for a few > > > wealthy people in Dulwich village. Some > people > > > seem to use the idea of the LTNs only > > benefitting > > > a privileged few as a worthy narrative for > > their > > > cause rather than being honest that they > don?t > > > want to make changes to their behaviour. > > > > You are spot on and I hope you let your local > > councillors know your thoughts. > > > > There is a climate emergency and we all have to > > change our behaviour. Wealthy people own cars > and > > tend to drive them because they can afford to. > > Once they leave their neighbourhood their > driving > > through and polluting the poor areas they say > they > > care about. I don?t get it. Most people in > > Southwark don?t own cars. As an outsider the > local > > campaign appears somewhat hypocritical. > Hopefully > > attitudes will change with time. > > > But LTNBooHoo most people in Dulwich do own cars - > in fact car ownership in Dulwich is some of the > highest in the borough. Why? Because people in > Dulwich don't have the same sort of access to > transport infrastructure that those people who > live in other parts of the borough do - in fact > our PTAL scores are some of the lowest in the > borough (and that, along with things like age and > family size contribute massively to car > ownership). There are reasons why people own cars. > And there are reasons why the council's own advice > was to only put LTNs in areas that have high PTAL > scores and don't have high car ownership - putting > them in Dulwich went completely contrary to their > own advice. This is why it is backfiring because > Dulwich was the worst place to put LTNs in - it > was destined to fail from the get go - > displacement was always going to be a huge issue. You really need to read up on the subject. Start with https://content.tfl.gov.uk/technical-note-12-how-many-cars-are-there-in-london.pdf A PTAL rate of 2 does not justify owning more than 1 car per household and doesn?t get residents off the hook in making sustainable travel choices. Your argument is baseless and frankly demonstrates breathtaking ignorance.

BellendenBear Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Do you think that ED parents drive their kids to > Kingsdale? I don?t think that?s the case. My 12 > year old daughter goes there and all her friends > cycle or use public transport. Her primary school > friends ended up at 6 or 7 different secondary > schools and the ones at state schools all walk, > cycle or use public transport. > > The LTNs, while not being perfect, make it safer > for many kids to cycle to lots of schools. I have > been walking and cycling through Greendale to drop > kids at primary school for the past 8 years and > the number of secondary school kids and families > with primary school kids cycling to school has > increased massively since the LTNs on Champion > Hill and in Dulwich Village were introduced. I > don?t live in or next to an LTN, but the benefits > of them are felt more widely than for a few > wealthy people in Dulwich village. Some people > seem to use the idea of the LTNs only benefitting > a privileged few as a worthy narrative for their > cause rather than being honest that they don?t > want to make changes to their behaviour. You are spot on and I hope you let your local councillors know your thoughts. There is a climate emergency and we all have to change our behaviour. Wealthy people own cars and tend to drive them because they can afford to. Once they leave their neighbourhood their driving through and polluting the poor areas they say they care about. I don?t get it. Most people in Southwark don?t own cars. As an outsider the local campaign appears somewhat hypocritical. Hopefully attitudes will change with time.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I see that Lambeth gated communities are now going > to have CCTV and policing spent on them to keep > the unwashed away from the peaceful q?white > areas.....more and more like an American gated > community everyday that passes. Rosamund Kissi > Debrah must watch on with deep despair. That?s funny a ?gated community? is what One Dulwich/DA is pushing for! A permit system where everyone in Dulwich (whatever that means) gets a permit, which would allow the ?washed? to drive in and out of their nice neighbourhood into poorer areas of town. Of course the unwashed won?t be let in as they won?t have a permit. Where?s the equality in that you ask on behalf Rosemund Kissi Debra?

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But @Rockets, this is what has been asked for! > Right from the moment the first planter was put > in, the modus operandi of all these One... groups > is the same. Demand data of all types. Interim > data, initial data, monitoring data, pollution > data. > > (it's quite ironic that the more militant minded > of the anti-folk then go round cutting traffic > count cables specifically to disrupt the data > gathering but we'll skip over that for now...) > > When data is given, especially interim data, it'll > be rubbished as incomplete, inaccurate, biased, > faked and the demands to see the raw data (like > WTF are they going to do with the download from a > traffic count machine...?!). When the final report > is produced, it'll be claimed that it's the follow > on from an incomplete initial report. Repeat ad > infinitum. > > Every piece of data that is produced is fought > over to the nth degree, questioning it's veracity > - wrong location, wrong time of day/week/month... > If it came from Location X, they'll demand it from > Location Y. When the data is positive (it usually > is, the basic principles are all the same), the > claim is then made that they don't need data to > see what's happening on their own street. Muddy > the waters, obfuscate, produce your own "survey" > which shows the opposite, claim the council are > manipulating things. > > You literally cannot win. Nothing will ever be > good enough, every bit of data produced will be > discarded with a request for ever more esoteric > and specific monitoring. > > > DC not conspiracy theories - just pointing out how > the council is manipulating the process to their > advantage. > > Sweeping generalisation but councils are usually > not competent enough to do conspiracy theories or > manipulation. ;-) > One of the amusing things about conspiracy > theories is that they almost always imply or > require a massive amount of cover up from > thousands of people. > > Face it, Matt Hancock couldn't even have a quiet > shag in his own office without it becoming public > knowledge; the idea that there is some kind of > mass secret collusion of council officials, > external contractors, DfT, transport experts and > so on to hide the truth, manipulate data and so on > is far-fetched in the extreme! > > > it was interesting that One Dulwich shared the > research they did from going door to door on the > roads within the closure area and 80% of the > people they spoke to wanted them removed. > > Damn, I must have been out, that would have been > an interesting conversation... ;-) > And obviously not at all biased, no leading > questions at all. > > You are brilliant! Wonderful response to the slightly unhinged accusations of conspiracy theories.

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Do you think a lifetime labour voter would shift > to Tory Bailey over ltns? It was a desperate move > for a loser. But locally I won?t be voting Labour > again. They have betrayed the people they stand > for. What happened to Fairer Futures for all? It?s > not LTNs as a principle but where they were placed > in Dulwich and who benefited that was the breaking > point. The majority of LTNs in Southwark are in poorer parts of town. Dulwich has the highest car ownership in a borough where 58% of residents don?t have access to a car. Think about that for a moment. Is it fair that Dulwich residents get permits to drive around and through poorer areas (as supported by the Dulwich Alliance) or do affluent areas try to drive less and play a full part to give others who are less fortunate a fairer future? Alien your comments about rooftop housing etc need to be squarely directed at the Tories. Rooftop housing won?t happen in affluent areas that are protected ie conservation areas. Shite planning happens in poorer areas where Tories tend not to live. Those who are concerned about equality can take up the fight.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LTN BooHoo - yes we agree but this route Southwark > have taken is not at all equitable....whilst some > benefit the majority don't. > > The council may be able to bus in votes from LTN > lobby groups outside of Dulwich to try to > influence the review result but they can't do that > in the councillor elections in May and they may be > in for a torrid time at the polls - there are lot > of local residents who are disgusted by the > approach the council and councillors have taken. > > All there needs to be are a couple of independent > candidates or a sensible Lib Dem candidate and you > can see a shift taking place and the Red Wall of > Southwark starts seeing a few different coloured > bricks. To be honest Southwark needs some > opposition as there is very little accountability > right now and it's why people like Leo Pollack get > away with what they were doing for so long and > it's why the council is able to treat residents > with contempt as they have done during the whole > of the LTN debacle. I disagree. In the last election, candidates like Fox, who ran on a platform that would see the filters in their areas removed, lost their deposits. Whereas, Councillors in Waltham Forest were all re-elected after receiving deaths threats by anti LTN advocates when their filters were introduced some years ago. This is a cross party federal, regional and local initiative. The Dulwich filters were all consulted on prior to installation and those which were introduced under the emergency traffic order procedures are perfectly legal. What is your solution to meet our climate emergency? Ask people to give up their SUVs/short journeys nicely?

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LTN BooHoo Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Rockets Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > They are out again today...there is a group > > > congregating outside Saucy with Charlie now. > > It's > > > almost as if they are concerned about > > > something..... > > > > Global warming? Our climate emergency? > Inactivity? > > Obesity? Pollution? Our children?s future? The > > fact that we have built our lives around the > motor > > vehicle and if we have any decency we will > > acknowledge that we must seek alternatives? > > > > I know, none of the above. Let?s just carry on > as > > we were. Have a nice day. > > I am pretty sure that is not their > concern....these are politicians trying to > manipulate the result of the review. It's so > brazen it just shows how out of control they are. Have you read the New Southwark Plan? There is a clear adopted policy mandate to reduce carbon emissions. We can?t achieve this by carrying on as we are. It?s an inconvenient truth that we all have to contribute. The review is ongoing and we won?t understand the cost/benefits of the interventions for at least a year maybe more. Councillors are entitled to knock on doors and I suggest this will have only a minimal impact on the outcome of the review. I read on Twitter ? we are going to vote you out?. What impact will this have? If conservative/independent councillors are elected will they have a stronger voice when addressing a labour council? Not likely Southwark has been a progressive forward thinking borough for years now. Do you really think they are going to back down and respond like conservative councils eg K&C or Westminster? We have a climate emergency we ALL need to wake up.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They are out again today...there is a group > congregating outside Saucy with Charlie now. It's > almost as if they are concerned about > something..... Global warming? Our climate emergency? Inactivity? Obesity? Pollution? Our children?s future? The fact that we have built our lives around the motor vehicle and if we have any decency we will acknowledge that we must seek alternatives? I know, none of the above. Let?s just carry on as we were. Have a nice day.

High court ruling in favour of Lambeth?s LTNs. Take heart! Hopefully One Dulwich won?t waste money challenging Southwark. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2021/1745.html

The discussion was more balanced in my group. It was nice to hear one chap talk about climate change and the need to address it. (Opponents didn?t seem particularly worried about that ) Most of the discussion centred on displacement and the disabled. Otherwise it was personal accounts of inconvenience. One person pointed out the traffic numbers have actually fallen on main roads in the last decade enabled by Google maps, and that residential roads had been soaking up the displacement but this didn?t count for much in the group. Reading the ire on the chat was disappointing.

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well Court could make a pair with Calton, using > gilkes close(?) to get to village. Rather than as > before where poor traffic lights etc create faux > congestion. > > Tho my preference is to make court lane a bus > route and have a proper bike lane. > Gilkes and Calton could each be 1 way. That?s very sensible Alice! Love that idea... It would serve residents living on those privileged roads right and risk the safety of children at the same time. Maybe we should campaign to get Calton and Gilkes reclassified as A roads? Re the bus route - where would the busses go and who would they serve?

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes there is truth in that Abe...my local Labour > Ward voted to keep LTNs and the very active > members live in an LTN. I think the ?square? > though is definitely a bit of a two councillor > show....with one very vocal person. Who is the very vocal person? Not the late Alistair Hanton, who has been pressing for sustainable transport for years?

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not that, but I did hear that Court Lane was going > to be made one-way as the council was > acknowledging that there were problems being > caused by the throttling of east/west routes by > the closures. > > Maybe the two are linked? Making Court Lane one way is a great way to ensure there is an accident. One way roads encourage speeding thereby increasing the likelihood of pedestrian fatalities.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thank you Legal, you clearly explained. If > Southwark had followed their own guidelines, then > the LTNs in this area would be very different. > > Calton and Court are wide arterial routes and not > little country lanes - not very different from > Croxted and ED Grove, except for the modal value > of housing - ?3,112,550 in Calton and the majority > of sales in East Dulwich Grove during the last > year were flats, selling for an average price of > ?530,500. > > This 'rat-run' idea is not only ridiculous it is > insulting to residents on ED Grove, Croxted, LL > and Grove Vale - apparently we are lesser mortals > who deserve 'rats' on our roads. Seeing car > ownership is very high in the chosen LTNs and > significantly lower on our ratty roads, it would > appear that most of the 'rats' driving down my > road, live in the LTNs! > > The 'lobby' for a gated community has been active > in Calton/Court/Melbourne and Derwent for many, > many years. Professional, white, wealthy, middle > classes...(apart from the wealthy part, I fit that > demographic), who are very able to vocalise and > organise. > The point of having councillors is that they > should consider impacts of any decision on those > less able to organise, voice opinion and have > little or no agency. > Instead this really is the vanity project of one > councillor, without any consideration on the > surrounding areas, so that they are popular with > these pressure and lobby groups. > It is quite shameless and entitled. I stopped reading just after ?wide arterial routes? and for the record the value of housing is Immaterial. Go to Leyton and see for yourself. ?An arterial road or arterial thoroughfare is a high-capacity urban road that sits below freeways/motorways on the road hierarchy in terms of traffic flow and speed?

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > legalalien Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > I am sure that they are > > more than aware of the pandemic. > > So why didn't DA mention it in their flyer? Isn?t Dulwich Alliance advocating for a virtual gated community by promoting the introduction of a permit system where only those with permits can drive in at certain times? Legalalien answers to the above would be great.

I?ve heard that Dulwich residents are getting fed up with the numerous flyers from DA all spouting various levels of misinformation or propaganda. They offer no viable solution and only want to go back to what we had before. At one point I thought I could support them but no more. ?Share pollution equally? is their offer and I?m not sure how that meets the climate emergency we face.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well..I bought my flat as a poorly paid junior > health professional 30 years ago. I wish it was > worth 3 million. I think you might find that > houses in Calton, Court, Melbourne, Derwent are as > a mode average far more expensive than ED Grove. > > A mean average isn't much use when thinking about > house prices because if you have one 4 mill house > and 3 400K flats your average is 1.3 million which > is silly if looking at house prices on ED Grove. > > From RightMove 'The majority of sales in East > Dulwich Grove during the last year were flats, > selling for an average price of ?530,500' > > which is cheap for this area. > > Compare to gated community Melbourne 'The majority > of sales in Melbourne Grove during the last year > were terraced properties, selling for an average > price of ?1,060,000.' > > and gated community Calton Ave 'Properties in > Calton Avenue had an overall average price of > ?2,700,000 over the last year. Overall, sold > prices in Calton Avenue over the last year were > 68% up on the previous year.' > > Or gated community Court Lane > 'Properties in Court Lane had an overall average > price of ?1,781,667 over the last year. The > majority of sales in Court Lane during the last > year were terraced properties, selling for an > average price of ?1,795,833. Semi-detached > properties sold for an average of ?1,753,333.' > > > There are a lot of posters on the Dutch Estate, > posters at the LL end and the Village end, with > privately owned flats along the middle. > > The rental flats - of which there are many - on > conversations with some renters, hate the > increased traffic, but are worried about > landlords, so will not put a poster up. > > I'm amazed by the support for re-thinking the LTNs > on ED Grove..many people are very upset about the > extra traffic on an already illegally polluted > road. Many residents live in flats with no garden, > very different from the houses in the LTNs, many > of which have huge gardens. Isn?t Dulwich Alliance advocating for a virtual gated community by promoting the introduction of a permit system where only those with permits can drive in at certain times?

DulvilleRes Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There needs to be a bit of context and balance on > reporting on anti-social behaviour by people > arguing for and against LTN's. > > I've seen no mention on this thread of a couple of > troubling incidents at the end of the week before > last. In the first one, a deeply unpleasant and > personal notice was posted on the front and side > doors of an elderly lady with a pro LTN point of > view. In the second similar one, a woman living > nearby, with a pro LTN viewpoint, had an equally > unpleasant and personal notice put up in the > street in which she lives. This is beyond the > level of any kind of reasoned debate amongst > neighbours about local issues, and tips I would > think into criminal law. @legalalien made a very > good point about keeping it civil - I think the > sometimes antagonistic tone on this thread doesn't > help. Agree, this behaviour is unacceptable. However it continues. The planters have been vandalised 3 nights running. Intimidating people and damaging public property will not help one?s cause. There is no justification for this.

Droid Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > eastdulwichlocal99 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I really don?t know what all the fuss is about > - > > the roads are only busy at rush hour like they > > have always been. Go down from 9:30am onwards > and > > it?s really quiet. Removing the LTNs won?t > change > > the rush hour jam one bit. > > > Sorry but it's not just rush hour. The increased > traffic congestion on Saturday & Sunday is > horrendous on EDG, LL, DV, Croxted and Gove Vale > simply because:- > 1. Locals use their cars for a weekly shop as it's > the only time they can reasonably do it if the > work mid-week. > 2. Most of the roads off EDG and the others are > blocked. > 3. People travel to socialise. > > Last Saturday, my neighbour took 40 minutes to > travel from Grove Vale to Alleyns school. > > Your assessment is just so, so wrong. Ok I have to ask, I assume your neighbour was driving from Grove Vale to Alleyns School, if so why? Time poor? Au pair on the sick? Why would anyone drive that short distance?

Think outside the box and encourage the council to do more not less.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jooles, that's great and totally support what you > are doing. I am holding onto my car because I > genuinely need to use it at times. In those > instances, car hire/ public transport is not a > viable option. Not all the journeys I have to make > are feasible by bicycle, the ones that are I do. I > suspect this is the reality for many others. It is > complex. The current 'solutions' are overly > simplistic and actually creating greater problems > for some. Here?s the list. https://www.coya.com/bike/index-2019 Each city has its challenges but no matter how one justifies our woeful infrastructure for bikes we are not doing great. No excuse - we (that?s all of us) must do more if we are going to see real and meaningful change.

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Scrapping your car because of Diesel ULEZ > enforcement in October 2022, right ? No it?s not a diesel. I?m scrapping it because I don?t use it 15 year old and 40,000 miles on it. Not worth it better to car share or ride a pushbike.