Jump to content

Recommended Posts

first mate Wrote:

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

> Yes, perhaps one or a handful of residents

> supported by pro CPZ campaigners from outside the

> area. My only point is that the ?interference? of

> outsiders charge cuts both ways.



Except for the fact that the "charge" was entirely invented by opponents to the LTN in the first place. It's a conspiracy theory!

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> "the final say is with the residents" Sadly not.

> Final say is with the council as we saw last time

> when streets that had asked not to have a CPZ

> ended up with one.


Have you read the final consultation report for the East Dulwich CPZ?


http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s84107/Appendix%202.pdf


Besides I was referring to residents vis a vis ?outsiders?

Yep, that consultation report shows how the council deliberately sought the views of people who lived outside the consultation zone and who were therefore not automatically sent the consultation pack).


"Banners were placed on railings in five locations in East Dulwich and posters placed in notice boards to alert residents and visitors of the parking zone consultation. The council also created posts on social media (Twitter and Facebook) to promote the consultation.


I'm not surprised that they did this because that report also shows that 100% of the responses from visitors were in favour of a CPZ.

?The biggest proportion of responses (80%) were from residents followed by visitors (16%) businesses (98 responses, or 4%) and organisations (<1%).?


Visitors views were not included in the stats, you will see that visitors are shown at the bottom of each table, outside the main results.

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> This is also farcical, given what is going on:

>

> "Goose Green primary school expressed concern

> about the effect of the zone on recruitment of

> staff who wish

> to drive to their workplace"

We could advise them currently: On yer bike!

1849 people have signed that petition now.....people in Dulwich seem to be mobilising (not in their cars I hasten to add) as we know lots of people who have forwarded the link and details to all their friends locally - it seems to be hitting a chord.
Why on earth would you want to re-open Melbourne Grove? As a resident of this road for over 30 years, I have seen the rapid decline in air quality, safety and a huge increase in noise pollution.This is totally due to the huge increase in traffic and the general noise pollution from cars. It has been an unsafe street to cross at busy times for some time and has hugely devalued the quality of life for local residents. Cars have had priority on this street for too many years. I know for a fact that I have seen a local resident regularly driving their precious child to the new school in the road. Too idle to walk and quite willing to be totally selfish and clog up the road with their car. Then I have witnessed the same parent driving back and parking outside their home. It must have been all of 800 yards. Cars do not, and should not have priority over the interests of the local residents. I totally agree with the new measures, and wish them to remain permanent, and make our environment greener and cleaner for children and adults alike.

first mate Wrote:

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

> http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDispl

> ay.aspx?id=500000049

>

> 2069 now


2069 people who don't realise that driving to the shops down the street of your choice is not a fundamental human right.

micromacromonkey Wrote:

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

> first mate Wrote:

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

> -----

> >

> http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDispl

>

> > ay.aspx?id=500000049

> >

> > 2069 now

>

> 2069 people who don't realise that driving to the

> shops down the street of your choice is not a

> fundamental human right.



I don't drive - I don't even have a driving licence. I signed the petition because I think it is not fair to treat people living on the streets that take the extra traffic now with significantly more noise and pollution - do you?

"Why on earth would you want to re-open Melbourne Grove? As a resident of this road for over 30 years, I have seen the rapid decline in air quality, safety and a huge increase in noise pollution.This is totally due to the huge increase in traffic and the general noise pollution from cars. It has been an unsafe street to cross at busy times for some time and has hugely devalued the quality of life for local residents. Cars have had priority on this street for too many years. I know for a fact that I have seen a local resident regularly driving their precious child to the new school in the road. Too idle to walk and quite willing to be totally selfish and clog up the road with their car. Then I have witnessed the same parent driving back and parking outside their home. It must have been all of 800 yards. Cars do not, and should not have priority over the interests of the local residents. I totally agree with the new measures, and wish them to remain permanent, and make our environment greener and cleaner for children and adults alike.


"Cars have had priority on this street for too many years. I know for a fact that I have seen a local resident regularly driving their precious child to the new school in the road. Too idle to walk and quite willing to be totally selfish and clog up the road with their car. Then I have witnessed the same parent driving back and parking outside their home. It must have been all of 800 yards."


Cars use roads because that is what they were built for, pavements are for for people.


Surprised after 30 years you now have to say something on a local forum about a road that has always been used as different route to Lordship Lane.


I am all right jack comes to mind lets others have the problem we have a nice closed off road now.

I was walking around this area at 9am this morning after school drop off. Grove Vale was no busier than usual. Melbourne Grove was a delight, it was lovely to see people milling about, drinking coffee outside the new coffee shop without the old rat run traffic. East Dulwich Grove was a bit busier, with a bit of a queue onto Lordship Lane. But no traffic chaos in the slightest.

"Cars have had priority on this street for too many years."

So, when one moves to live on a street and it has traffic, you sort of know that's the deal. And it IS a road, after all.

Cars have priority on streets - yes, pedestrians have priority on pavements, cyclists in cycle lanes, airplanes above airports, shipping on rivers and the sea.

It sorts of works like that..

"Cars use roads because that is what they were built for, pavements are for for people."


Roads have been around much longer than cars! Most of East Dulwich's roads were built decades before the Model T was even invented. The Plough was a coaching inn. Traffic patterns have changed radically since then, but also in the last ten years. Uber, Amazon and their imitators have radically increased the number of journeys being taken. It hasn't "always been this way so shut up".


What we are seeing right now in London is the consequence of trying to move millions of vehicles along streets not designed for the density of population or car ownership, and with too many people focusing on whether they're ENTITLED to drive along a street whenever they want instead of whether they OUGHT to. And that's why we are ending up with hard rules.

bubbachumps Wrote:

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

> Is there a DON'T reverse the road closures

> petition as well? Otherwise can't see how the

> council will know which is more popular!



To be fair to everyone I propose


a) to close every single road in Dulwich (except for buses, ambulances etc)so everyone can enjoy living on quiet streets with much reduced air pollution

OR

b) ban everyone who lives on the roads closed off to traffic from driving - thus reducing the number of cars that are currently filling the remaining roads


I'm sure that everyone who is happy with the current road closures will like these options since you have the entire community wellbeing at heart.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

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

> "Cars use roads because that is what they were

> built for, pavements are for for people."

>

> Roads have been around much longer than cars! Most

> of East Dulwich's roads were built decades before

> the Model T was even invented. The Plough was a

> coaching inn. Traffic patterns have changed

> radically since then, but also in the last ten

> years. Uber, Amazon and their imitators have

> radically increased the number of journeys being

> taken. It hasn't "always been this way so shut

> up".

>

> What we are seeing right now in London is the

> consequence of trying to move millions of vehicles

> along streets not designed for the density of

> population or car ownership, and with too many

> people focusing on whether they're ENTITLED to

> drive along a street whenever they want instead of

> whether they OUGHT to. And that's why we are

> ending up with hard rules.



What we are seeing now in Dulwich is the consequence of trying to squeeze more traffic down already crowded roads by closing a load of other roads.

How?s this ... open all closed roads, ban on street parking on roads with off street/outside house parking (ie: Calton road, Court lane etc etc) then in the resultant space create a series of bike lanes.

Then everybody?s happy.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I have been using Andy for many years for decorating and general handyman duties. He always does a great job, is very friendly and his prices are competitive. Highly recommend.
    • Money has to be raised in order to slow the almost terminal decline of public services bought on through years of neglect under the last government. There is no way to raise taxes that does not have some negative impacts / trade offs. But if we want public services and infrastructure that work then raise taxes we must.  Personally I'm glad that she is has gone some way to narrowing the inheritance loop hole which was being used by rich individuals (who are not farmers) to avoid tax. She's slightly rebalanced the burden away from the young, putting it more on wealthier pensioners (who let's face it, have been disproportionately protected for many, many years). And the NICs increase, whilst undoubtedly inflationary, won't be directly passed on (some will, some will likely be absorbed by companies); it's better than raising it on employees, which would have done more to depress growth. Overall, I think she's sailed a prudent course through very choppy waters. The electorate needs to get serious... you can't have European style services and US levels of tax. Borrowing for tax cuts, Truss style, it is is not. Of course the elephant in the room (growing ever larger now Trump is in office and threatening tariffs) is our relationship with the EU. If we want better growth, we need a closer relationship with our nearest and largest trading block. We will at some point have to review tax on transport more radically (as we see greater up take of electric vehicles). The most economically rational system would be one of dynamic road pricing. But politically, very difficult to do
    • Labour was right not to increase fuel duty - it's not just motorists it affects, but goods transport. Fuel goes up, inflation goes up. Inflation will go up now anyway, and growth will stagnate, because businesses will pass the employee NIC hikes onto customers.  I think farms should be exempt from the 20% IHT. I don't know any rich famers, only ones who work their fingers to the bone. But it's in their blood and taking that, often multi-generation, legacy out of the family is heart-breaking. Many work to such low yields, and yet they'll often still bring a lamb to the vet, even if the fees are more than the lamb's life (or death) is worth. Food security should be made a top priority in this country. And, even tho the tax is only for farms over £1m, that's probably not much when you add it all up. I think every incentive should be given to young people who want to take up the mantle. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...