LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[LTN BooHoo]

I can only go on what the One Dulwich / Dulwich Alliance puts on their web site in terms of trying to understand what they are advocating for. At the moment it?s permits and disinformation eg volumes of traffic hasn?t increased over the past decade. For example, Dulwich Alliance have published a photograph of an ambulance driver speaking to a woman to demonstrate that emergency vechicles are being delay which is not true. Yet we hear nothing from One Dulwich or DA about the number of collisions in London resulting in deaths ( 2019 = 125 deaths, 3780 serious injuries and 26,102 slight injuries) Road danger on residential streets has increased by 38% almost double the 21% increase on main roads.

DA supporters should know that in the past decade the number of miles driven on London?s roads each year has increased by 3.9 billion. 400 million more litres of fossil fuels were being burnt by motor vehicles on London?s roads in 2019 then in 2009. Then start to think about the sales of SUVs. In 2019 +150,00 new cars were sold that are too big to fit into a standard parking space.

In addition evidence shows that since 2009 our neighbourhoods have absorbed the FULL increase in miles driven on London?s roads, while, since 2006, the number of miles driven on our main roads annually has dropped by 800 million. This is due to satnav technology. Our streets have been turned into convenient bypasses for the benefit of individuals. Short journeys must also be understood- 50% are less than 3km.

If the DA and 1D could at least acknowledge the above then maybe there is a common objective to work towards.

With the introduction LTNs and other measures the boundary roads are taking back some of the displaced traffic that satnavs have encouraged onto residential roads since 2006. But this doesn?t make displacement acceptable as thousands of Londoners die prematurely due to air pollution - a large proportion of which is generated by motor vehicles. LTNs are a blunt instrument - zero-tailpipe emission vechicles will help urban transit, safe active travel will help, road charging is a must, subsidies for fuel duties must go, low-cost public transport is essential, but still is not enough as the Climate Change Committee makes clear. There is not a city in the world that has addressed the March of the private motor vehicle without placing restrains on where vehicles can go. It?s an uncomfortable truth that we must all face.

We cannot meet our legally binding decarbonisation commitments without drastically reducing surface transport emissions. Electrification will help BUT we need to reduce the amount of miles driven by a minimum of 17% against 2017 levels, which is approximately 3.8 billion miles.

IF we are serious about addressing the public health, environmental and social effects of car culture then road user pricing, LTNs, safe cycling infrastructure, CPZs, limiting parking permits, the removal of private parking infrastructure on public and private land, bus gates and prioritisation to exclude private cars will have to happen.

Anyone who suggests otherwise is misleading the public or merely misinformed. Only by placing limits on what kinds of motor vehicles can use our streets, where they can go, and at what speed, will we begin to gradually hand back our streets to everyone, young, old, rich, poor, boundary road or residential road occupants.

Dulwich Alliance supporters have chosen to fiercely contest what has been done to date - from day one. This is to be expected from those who benefit from the status quo - including the fossil fuel industry, the car industry, way-finding app developers, a compromised media who need to attract advertisers, and drivers themselves.

Imagine the influence we would have if we worked together to push our politicians to drive real and meaningful change to make Dulwich and the rest of London a great place to live.

[rachp]

...

[Bicknell]

@LTNBoohoo where does it say on 1D website or duwlcih calliance website that volmums of traffic hasnt increased pver [ast decade? cant find it. thank you. and how do you know that their app developers.or compromised media.

[Rockets]

Boo Hoo - I think what DA and One Dulwich are trying to do is redress the balance and give voice to those members of the local community who feel they are being ignored and sidelined by the council, their supporters and their agenda. If the council had engaged in a balanced, transparent and open process from the beginning then community members would not have felt the need to start or join groups like DA and OneDulwich - they were born from the council repeatedly refusing to listen to many members of the community choosing instead to seek guidance from pro-closure lobby and cycle groups.

In the same way that you are frustrated by what DA and One Dulwich are putting out there are many who will be frustrated by the stats you are quoting, many of which have been touted extensively by the pro-closure lobby (and have since been questioned, discredited or exposed as false).

Also, your note highlights the challenge here. You quote lots of figures for London (and I see councillors like CllR McAsh claiming that a minority of people own cars when in fact in area like Dulwich, and his own constituency to which he was referring, the majority own cars) and whilst we live in London you really need to analyse what is happening in your area.

You quote the 3.8bn extra miles - did you know that the Dulwich area has seen a decrease in miles (although the decrease wasn't as much as the council thought it would be)?

You quote road safety - no-one will argue with you that we need to get all injuries caused on the road down but, did you know, for example, that Dulwich has 50% less injuries on the roads than the Southwark average? This, according to the Southwark Council 2018 Dulwich Traffic Management report (7 injuries per km of road in 3 years for Southwark, compared to 3.8 in Dulwich) which also sheds broader light on the folly of this LTN intervention by the council.

Did you know, for example, that 68% of all internal trips within the Dulwich area were already being done on foot (in the majority 65%) or bike (3%) in 2018?

Or that Dulwich has some of the lowest PTAL scores in the whole of Southwark (and the whole of Dulwich ranks as having poor transport links) - meaning that public transport is not at all good? Or that Dulwich has both a young (under 16) and old (over 65) population (much higher than the rest of Southwark) which leads to more dependency on cars?

It's all in here from the council: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/6887/Dulwich-TMS-SDG-Full-Report-Final-April-2018-.pdf

I would challenge even the most fervent supporter of the LTNs not to read that council report and not question why the council deemed Dulwich as appropriate for these measures. It was clear from day one what the impact of closing many of the routes east/west across Dulwich was going to do to the surrounding roads.

This line from that report is very telling: On the other hand, the lower E-W public transport connectivity is reflected in higher numbers of people travelling from/to neighbouring boroughs by car.

So why then, has the council targeted E-W travel with these closures? Surely they must have known what was going to happen?

And please - don't fall into the trap of playing the petrol-head anti-LTN trope - we've been there a lot already over the last year or so and it's a little worn now. Also, the change in use of side-roads is not all rat-runners using sat nav - far more likely is the changing use of online shopping and home delivery services delivering to residents.

Let me replay your idea back to you: imagine if the council had engaged with the community properly and tried to implement area-wide measures that both addressed the challenge of car-use but also ensured a fair and equitable outcome for everyone. We probably wouldn't be in this mess or having this debate right now! ;-)

[alice]

LTN BH There is nothing wrong with most of what you write but nobody seems to be be able to answer the simple question:

Why are the dulwich LTNs on the wealthiest part of south Southwark?

[Raeburn]

Alice, why do you call the Joyride initiative ?pathetic?? Genuinely would like to hear your perspective.

[LTN BooHoo]

Rockets Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Boo Hoo - I think what DA and One Dulwich are

> trying to do is redress the balance and give voice

> to those members of the local community who feel

> they are being ignored and sidelined by the

> council, their supporters and their agenda. If the

> council had engaged in a balanced, transparent and

> open process from the beginning then community

> members would not have felt the need to start or

> join groups like DA and OneDulwich - they were

> born from the council repeatedly refusing to

> listen to many members of the community choosing

> instead to seek guidance from pro-closure lobby

> and cycle groups.

>

> In the same way that you are frustrated by what DA

> and One Dulwich are putting out there are many who

> will be frustrated by the stats you are quoting,

> many of which have been touted extensively by the

> pro-closure lobby (and have since been questioned,

> discredited or exposed as false).

>

> Also, your note highlights the challenge here. You

> quote lots of figures for London (and I see

> councillors like CllR McAsh claiming that a

> minority of people own cars when in fact in area

> like Dulwich, and his own constituency to which he

> was referring, the majority own cars) and whilst

> we live in London you really need to analyse what

> is happening in your area.

>

> You quote the 3.8bn extra miles - did you know

> that the Dulwich area has seen a decrease in miles

> (although the decrease wasn't as much as the

> council thought it would be)?

>

> You quote road safety - no-one will argue with you

> that we need to get all injuries caused on the

> road down but, did you know, for example, that

> Dulwich has 50% less injuries on the roads than

> the Southwark average? This, according to the

> Southwark Council 2018 Dulwich Traffic Management

> report (7 injuries per km of road in 3 years for

> Southwark, compared to 3.8 in Dulwich) which also

> sheds broader light on the folly of this LTN

> intervention by the council.

>

> Did you know, for example, that 68% of all

> internal trips within the Dulwich area were

> already being done on foot (in the majority 65%)

> or bike (3%) in 2018?

>

> Or that Dulwich has some of the lowest PTAL scores

> in the whole of Southwark (and the whole of

> Dulwich ranks as having poor transport links) -

> meaning that public transport is not at all good?

> Or that Dulwich has both a young (under 16) and

> old (over 65) population (much higher than the

> rest of Southwark) which leads to more dependency

> on cars?

>

> It's all in here from the council:

> https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/6887/Du

> lwich-TMS-SDG-Full-Report-Final-April-2018-.pdf

>

> I would challenge even the most fervent supporter

> of the LTNs not to read that council report and

> not question why the council deemed Dulwich as

> appropriate for these measures. It was clear from

> day one what the impact of closing many of the

> routes east/west across Dulwich was going to do to

> the surrounding roads.

>

> This line from that report is very telling: On the

> other hand, the lower E-W public transport

> connectivity is reflected in higher numbers of

> people travelling from/to neighbouring boroughs by

> car.

>

> So why then, has the council targeted E-W travel

> with these closures? Surely they must have known

> what was going to happen?

>

> And please - don't fall into the trap of playing

> the petrol-head anti-LTN trope - we've been there

> a lot already over the last year or so and it's a

> little worn now. Also, the change in use of

> side-roads is not all rat-runners using sat nav -

> far more likely is the changing use of online

> shopping and home delivery services delivering to

> residents.

>

> Let me replay your idea back to you: imagine if

> the council had engaged with the community

> properly and tried to implement area-wide measures

> that both addressed the challenge of car-use but

> also ensured a fair and equitable outcome for

> everyone. We probably wouldn't be in this mess or

> having this debate right now! ;-)

THE STATS COME FROM THE GOVERNMENT WEB SITE.

If you hear one thing hear this: the debate is not about Dulwich.

[alice]

This debate is about just that Dulwich. If you disagree take your future comments to the lounge.

[DulwichCentral]

@Rockets said 'Let me replay your idea back to you: imagine if the council had engaged with the community properly and tried to implement area-wide measures that both addressed the challenge of car-use but also ensured a fair and equitable outcome for everyone.'

So how can this 'fair and equitable' outcome be achieved without causing inconvenience and at the same time urgently pushing behaviour change? I say urgently because I'm assuming you are not a climate denier @Rockets?

I just listened to a very interesting podcast about cognitive dissonance. Best analogy I've heard: it's the uncomfortable feeling a smoker would have in knowing smoking is harmful and foolish but wanting to carry on doing it. So the smoker will go to great lengths to justify smoking (it keeps me thin, I'm stressed etc etc).

Clearly it's very difficult to change people's minds, as this thread illustrates ad infinitum.

But if we all agree in reducing car usage and emissions urgently and that active travel is good for our health - how can it be done urgently, equitably, without causing inconvenience / pushing behaviour change?

It seems to me One Dulwich Alliance spend far too much time attacking Southwark Council rather than actually suggesting any constructive solutions. I have no idea what they actually want - do you?

[alice]

Raeburn Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> alice Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Pathetic- a cycle ride for women.

>

>

> What do you mean by this Alice? Genuinely

> interested to understand your perspective.

just an instant, gut reaction.

[Rockets]

LTN BooHoo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Rockets Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Boo Hoo - I think what DA and One Dulwich are

> > trying to do is redress the balance and give

> voice

> > to those members of the local community who

> feel

> > they are being ignored and sidelined by the

> > council, their supporters and their agenda. If

> the

> > council had engaged in a balanced, transparent

> and

> > open process from the beginning then community

> > members would not have felt the need to start

> or

> > join groups like DA and OneDulwich - they were

> > born from the council repeatedly refusing to

> > listen to many members of the community

> choosing

> > instead to seek guidance from pro-closure lobby

> > and cycle groups.

> >

> > In the same way that you are frustrated by what

> DA

> > and One Dulwich are putting out there are many

> who

> > will be frustrated by the stats you are

> quoting,

> > many of which have been touted extensively by

> the

> > pro-closure lobby (and have since been

> questioned,

> > discredited or exposed as false).

> >

> > Also, your note highlights the challenge here.

> You

> > quote lots of figures for London (and I see

> > councillors like CllR McAsh claiming that a

> > minority of people own cars when in fact in

> area

> > like Dulwich, and his own constituency to which

> he

> > was referring, the majority own cars) and

> whilst

> > we live in London you really need to analyse

> what

> > is happening in your area.

> >

> > You quote the 3.8bn extra miles - did you know

> > that the Dulwich area has seen a decrease in

> miles

> > (although the decrease wasn't as much as the

> > council thought it would be)?

> >

> > You quote road safety - no-one will argue with

> you

> > that we need to get all injuries caused on the

> > road down but, did you know, for example, that

> > Dulwich has 50% less injuries on the roads than

> > the Southwark average? This, according to the

> > Southwark Council 2018 Dulwich Traffic

> Management

> > report (7 injuries per km of road in 3 years

> for

> > Southwark, compared to 3.8 in Dulwich) which

> also

> > sheds broader light on the folly of this LTN

> > intervention by the council.

> >

> > Did you know, for example, that 68% of all

> > internal trips within the Dulwich area were

> > already being done on foot (in the majority

> 65%)

> > or bike (3%) in 2018?

> >

> > Or that Dulwich has some of the lowest PTAL

> scores

> > in the whole of Southwark (and the whole of

> > Dulwich ranks as having poor transport links) -

> > meaning that public transport is not at all

> good?

> > Or that Dulwich has both a young (under 16) and

> > old (over 65) population (much higher than the

> > rest of Southwark) which leads to more

> dependency

> > on cars?

> >

> > It's all in here from the council:

> >

> https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/6887/Du

>

> > lwich-TMS-SDG-Full-Report-Final-April-2018-.pdf

> >

> > I would challenge even the most fervent

> supporter

> > of the LTNs not to read that council report and

> > not question why the council deemed Dulwich as

> > appropriate for these measures. It was clear

> from

> > day one what the impact of closing many of the

> > routes east/west across Dulwich was going to do

> to

> > the surrounding roads.

> >

> > This line from that report is very telling: On

> the

> > other hand, the lower E-W public transport

> > connectivity is reflected in higher numbers of

> > people travelling from/to neighbouring boroughs

> by

> > car.

> >

> > So why then, has the council targeted E-W

> travel

> > with these closures? Surely they must have

> known

> > what was going to happen?

> >

> > And please - don't fall into the trap of

> playing

> > the petrol-head anti-LTN trope - we've been

> there

> > a lot already over the last year or so and it's

> a

> > little worn now. Also, the change in use of

> > side-roads is not all rat-runners using sat nav

> -

> > far more likely is the changing use of online

> > shopping and home delivery services delivering

> to

> > residents.

> >

> > Let me replay your idea back to you: imagine if

> > the council had engaged with the community

> > properly and tried to implement area-wide

> measures

> > that both addressed the challenge of car-use

> but

> > also ensured a fair and equitable outcome for

> > everyone. We probably wouldn't be in this mess

> or

> > having this debate right now! ;-)

>

> THE STATS COME FROM THE GOVERNMENT WEB SITE.

>

> If you hear one thing hear this: the debate is not

> about Dulwich.

What government website...do please share your source....it seems to be in complete contradiction to the stats being put out by Southwark?

But this is very much is about Dulwich - the implementation of LTNs in Dulwich is very much about Dulwich and the impact on the local community in Dulwich. The debate is about the impact these measures are having on other members of our community who are having to live with the negative impact of the displacement. These closures have created a displacement tsunami - every LTN ever installed has created an LTN tsunami - remember the much heralded and championed Waltham Forest LTN caused a 28% increase in traffic on a road 3.1 miles away from the outer most edge of the LTN.

Of course, there is a bigger picture but you cannot behave in the way the council is behaving by creating a nirvana in some areas and a living hell in others - that is not at all fair or equitable and no bigger cause can be used to justify that.

[slarti b]

Dulwich Central

One Dulwich and DA have suggested constructive solutions to the council and the councillors. However, even though council officers accepted the proposals "had merit" the councillors refused to consider them and spend their time attacking One Dulwich, despite 1D being supported by a large number of their constituents. Closed minds.

Read the 1D web site; they are against 24\7 closures and wish to minimise disruption onto the displacement roads, the "Dulwich Village bypass roads". This ties in with the objectives of the OHS scheme.

As for active travel, we know from Southwark's own report that active travel within Dulwich is far, far higher than elsewhere in Southwark and higher even than the Council's ambitious target for 2030.

[Rockets]

DulwichCentral Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> @Rockets said 'Let me replay your idea back to

> you: imagine if the council had engaged with the

> community properly and tried to implement

> area-wide measures that both addressed the

> challenge of car-use but also ensured a fair and

> equitable outcome for everyone.'

>

> So how can this 'fair and equitable' outcome be

> achieved without causing inconvenience and at the

> same time urgently pushing behaviour change? I say

> urgently because I'm assuming you are not a

> climate denier @Rockets?

>

> I just listened to a very interesting podcast

> about cognitive dissonance. Best analogy I've

> heard: it's the uncomfortable feeling a smoker

> would have in knowing smoking is harmful and

> foolish but wanting to carry on doing it. So the

> smoker will go to great lengths to justify smoking

> (it keeps me thin, I'm stressed etc etc).

>

> Clearly it's very difficult to change people's

> minds, as this thread illustrates ad infinitum.

>

> But if we all agree in reducing car usage and

> emissions urgently and that active travel is good

> for our health - how can it be done urgently,

> equitably, without causing inconvenience / pushing

> behaviour change?

>

> It seems to me One Dulwich Alliance spend far too

> much time attacking Southwark Council rather than

> actually suggesting any constructive solutions. I

> have no idea what they actually want - do you?

DC - I am most definitely not a climate denier - it is the biggest challenge the planet faces but what the council has done will not make any impact.

Let me take your smoking analogy - what the council is doing is saying don't smoke outside your house, go down the road and smoke outside someone else's instead......;-) And the areas within the LTN are some of the biggest smokers in the area!

Dulwich Alliance et al attack Southwark Council because everything about these LTNs has been incredibly poorly communicated, managed and executed and it is the majority of residents of Dulwich who are having to live with the negative fallout whilst a minority live with the upside.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I understand that there are concerns that it may be more difficult to drive on some roads than others, but on the principle of making car journeys less convenient generally... do people fundamentally disagree?

[Rockets]

I am more of a carrot than a stick person so I would say make other modes of transport more attractive and convenient in tandem with making car journeys less convenient and you might be onto something. This was the biggest error by the council, they became obsessed and focussed solely on attacking car use without properly understanding what the issue was and putting anything in place to facilitate anything other than minor modal shift.

[rachp]

We stopped driving as much when we moved to just off the busy section of Lordship Lane because parking is so difficult in our road. We basically couldn't be bothered with the hassle. We now really only drive when taking a trip out of London. But if it's local, we walk/bike/scooter or use public transport. And now it's just become our way of doing things and we prefer it. It's been a bit more tricky during the COVID period as you are more reluctant to use public transport but hopefully things will start to get back to normal on that front soon.

[DulwichGlobetrotter]

This all day long. I?ve never owned a car and I have queuing traffic outside my door for much of the day. It?s driven my wife round the bend & caused a lot of anxiety and unhappiness. It puts me off voting Labour. I don?t even know where to put my cross this Thursday but if my vote can help us go back to having less of the traffic from the posh roads outside our door then I?ll do it. It?s made lockdown even more miserable.

? Let me take your smoking analogy - what the council is doing is saying don't smoke outside your house, go down the road and smoke outside someone else's instead......winking smiley And the areas within the LTN are some of the biggest smokers in the area!?

Rockets Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> DulwichCentral Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > @Rockets said 'Let me replay your idea back to

> > you: imagine if the council had engaged with

> the

> > community properly and tried to implement

> > area-wide measures that both addressed the

> > challenge of car-use but also ensured a fair

> and

> > equitable outcome for everyone.'

> >

> > So how can this 'fair and equitable' outcome be

> > achieved without causing inconvenience and at

> the

> > same time urgently pushing behaviour change? I

> say

> > urgently because I'm assuming you are not a

> > climate denier @Rockets?

> >

> > I just listened to a very interesting podcast

> > about cognitive dissonance. Best analogy I've

> > heard: it's the uncomfortable feeling a smoker

> > would have in knowing smoking is harmful and

> > foolish but wanting to carry on doing it. So

> the

> > smoker will go to great lengths to justify

> smoking

> > (it keeps me thin, I'm stressed etc etc).

> >

> > Clearly it's very difficult to change people's

> > minds, as this thread illustrates ad infinitum.

> >

> > But if we all agree in reducing car usage and

> > emissions urgently and that active travel is

> good

> > for our health - how can it be done urgently,

> > equitably, without causing inconvenience /

> pushing

> > behaviour change?

> >

> > It seems to me One Dulwich Alliance spend far

> too

> > much time attacking Southwark Council rather

> than

> > actually suggesting any constructive solutions.

> I

> > have no idea what they actually want - do you?

>

> DC - I am most definitely not a climate denier -

> it is the biggest challenge the planet faces but

> what the council has done will not make any

> impact.

>

> Let me take your smoking analogy - what the

> council is doing is saying don't smoke outside

> your house, go down the road and smoke outside

> someone else's instead......;-) And the areas

> within the LTN are some of the biggest smokers in

> the area!

>

> Dulwich Alliance et al attack Southwark Council

> because everything about these LTNs has been

> incredibly poorly communicated, managed and

> executed and it is the majority of residents of

> Dulwich who are having to live with the negative

> fallout whilst a minority live with the upside.

[Earl Aelfheah]

rachp Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> We stopped driving as much when we moved to just

> off the busy section of Lordship Lane because

> parking is so difficult in our road. We basically

> couldn't be bothered with the hassle. We now

> really only drive when taking a trip out of

> London. But if it's local, we walk/bike/scooter or

> use public transport. And now it's just become our

> way of doing things and we prefer it. It's been a

> bit more tricky during the COVID period as you are

> more reluctant to use public transport but

> hopefully things will start to get back to normal

> on that front soon.

Same here, and for many others I suspect. The reduction in cars on a handful of streets does also make it easier / more pleasant to walk and cycle.

[Earl Aelfheah]

The smoking analogy is more like workplaces, pubs and restaurants saying ?if you want to smoke you have to do it outside. It hasn?t just led to people taking their smoking onto the pavement (although some have that can cause inconvenience), but it?s led to many giving up smoking. The issue isn?t to allow smoking inside again, it?s to do more to deal with the nuisance of pavement smokers. In this case (I?m stretching the analogy), we need to now look to address the long standing congestion on main roads.

Those who think that we should only tackle cars once we have a new tube or something, are kidding themselves. That?s not to say that I don?t support better public transport, but it?s a longer term project.

The creation of some quieter streets does provide a carrot to those who would otherwise avoid walking and cycling and just get in the car.

DulwichGlobetrotter Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ? Let me take your smoking analogy - what the

> council is doing is saying don't smoke outside

> your house, go down the road and smoke outside

> someone else's instead......winking smiley And the

> areas within the LTN are some of the biggest

> smokers in the area!?

[ab29]

'The creation of some quieter streets does provide a carrot to those who would otherwise avoid walking and cycling and just get in the car' - it doesn't work like this and also, people do not stop driving simply because a few roads have been closed. I used to walk to my work place 2 hrs one way - and nobody had to close any roads for this to happen.

I waited for a bus near Dulwich Station recently - a few people were jogging on LL while the entry to Melbourne Grove showed a deserted street.

To close a few roads so someone can walk or cycle for 15 min per day while at the same time others have to live with the consequences seven day per week is beyond selfish.

[mfcjoe]

The LTNs are not for the good of the people, they are for the good of the council finances. All this BullS### about peoples health is a load of rubbish, it's all about money.

[DulwichGlobetrotter]

Ok, can we send all the cars to sit outside your house then? Sounds like you?d be ok with it RahRahRah

[rachp]

The reality is that thousands of people are not just going to wake up one day and have a crisis of conscience that is so great that they give up a deeply embedded habit such as regular driving- human beings don?t work like that as a general rule. Changing variables, very often beyond our control can trigger change. I was pretty much addicted to a daily coffee from a coffee shop, making my own just didn?t compare as an option. Lockdown changed that as we had to make coffee at home and now I prefer my homemade coffee and on the few occasions I?ve bought one since, I really haven?t enjoyed it. I?m coming at this from a behavioural psychology perspective, we are often driven to change by having our hand forced by an external variable, or by our current reality being more uncomfortable than the prospect of change. And of course, the carrots that make change more appealing help too.

[sally buying]

To enforce you statement try traveling from streets behind East Dulwich. With Rye Lane closed and no buses you spend 15 minutes plus trying to find a bus stop. Having great problems with walking it is madness to force people to walk.

Try doing this with shopping.

For me Rye Lane and Nunhead lane are a distant memory because there are no buses.

Contacted local Cllr Jasmine Ali on a number of times no response apart from I will look into it. That,s it, Silence.

[DulwichGlobetrotter]

Well use your vote tomorrow.

Labour in London make posh streets posher & dump congestion and pollution on the poorer streets. I?m done with them.

sally buying Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> To enforce you statement try traveling from

> streets behind East Dulwich. With Rye Lane closed

> and no buses you spend 15 minutes plus trying to

> find a bus stop. Having great problems with

> walking it is madness to force people to walk.

>

> Try doing this with shopping.

>

> For me Rye Lane and Nunhead lane are a distant

> memory because there are no buses.

>

> Contacted local Cllr Jasmine Ali on a number of

> times no response apart from I will look into it.

> That,s it, Silence.