Earl Aelfheah

If you want to reduce traffic, improve air quality, and encourage walking and cycling, then you have to restrict the number of car journeys. It's pretty simple. The majority of people in Southwark don't have access to a car. Most streets have two lanes for parked cars / long term vehicle storage and two more for moving traffic. This doesn't leave much room for people. The amount of resource given over to car drivers is completely disproportionate and the reaction of people to a few pretty timid attempts to reallocate a little space to make it easier for people to get about, is pretty incredible imo. 'One Dulwich' seem to be calling for local residents to be exempt from restrictions applied to others. If you live on Court Lane, or Carlton Avenue, you're looking at perhaps another 5 minutes in the car to get round the diversions. Alternatively, if you're not going far and you're part of the majority of people who are able to cycle or walk, perhaps you could do so. After all, they claim to be in favour of healthy streets.

Most people don't need to drive to schools. Unless we want to see higher levels of breathing problems, road deaths and escalating obesity levels, we should be encouraging those who can, to walk and cycle. Closing a few junctions does not amount to banning cars. 80% or more of all public space is still given over to motor vehicles. We're just looking for a modest rebalancing in favour of people.

What would be really good, would be a plan for a low traffic neighbourhood in ED and a segregated bike route into town.

Wil72 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Please visit the onedulwich website to support > those that are in favour of sensible ways to > reduce congestion- NOT closing roads that lead to > yet more congestion & make our lives a misery! They just want it switched to access only so that they are not personally inconvenienced from what I can tell.

intexasatthe moment Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why is Rye Lane blockaded with utilitarian posts > and blocks while Court Lane has wooden planters ? That's a good question

worldwiser Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > At a time when we're being discouraged from using > public transport, it's stupifyingly moronic to > bring these measures in now. It's exactly the right time to bring such measures in. Making streets safe for people to get around by bike and by foot. You can't seriously be suggesting that everyone should be encouraged to get in their cars.

Not a brexit thread though. Just saying cheap chicken looks likely to persist for quite sometime.

I?m referring to US trade deal, which seems to be our only real opportunity to make up for (a small percentage) lost trade. Looks like we?re heading for a ?no deal? exit from the worlds biggest trading block.

Fried chicken is tasty (I accept that this is a matter of personal taste, but clearly enough people think so), quick to be served / to eat and incredibly cheap. It's not difficult to see why it is popular. What really needs to be addressed is the poor farming methods. But it looks like the UK is moving towards even laxer standards post brexit, so kids are going to be getting fatter.

Great to finally see some pavement widening outside the fish mongers. Would be good to get something done by M&S. The metal barriers need to be removed and the pavement widened.

R number in London is now 0.8 - 1.1

I wasn?t aware of this, but it sounds good. I wonder whether they?ll do anything along Lordship Lane or North cross Road.

Here is what Wandsworth have been doing to help businesses and to create space for people. Compare and contrast with Lordship Lane:

They should have put plastic barriers up in order to widen the pavements, months ago.

Jakido Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It would appear that no schemes are being put > forward for aiding social distancing / widening > pavements / increased bike racks / reducing > traffic flows on the lordship lane: > > http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHo > me.aspx?IId=50023147&Opt=0 Yep, the main shopping street in the area and the council has absolutely nothing to help people social distance, or make it easier for businesses to reopen. It's actually pretty negligent.

ed26 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just adding layer upon layer of complexity doesn't > improve the streets for anyone. The council should > go back to the drawing board for the whole area > and think about what they really want to achieve > post Covid-19 rather than adding to the maze. I'm not sure any of the changes can really be said to be a response to COVID-19. If enabling businesses and workplaces to reopen whilst allowing for social distancing is the main priority, then we would be widening pavements along Lordship lane and creating segregated cycle lanes to connect into town. This can be done cheaply and quickly with cones and some temporary signs (as has happened in other boroughs).

Thanks for the tips

The question about the prioritisation process for these schemes is a fair one. I'm in favour of what they've done in the Village, because we desperately need to reduce pollution, and the number of road casualties. The allocation of public space is massively skewed to giving priority to cars over people and anything which moves us away from this and starts to redress the balance, has to be positive. But it does seem that on the whole, the Council's approach is to allocate funding towards small, vocal resident campaigns, who are demanding less traffic on 'their' road, (or in the case of CPZs, easier parking outside their houses). Whilst I don't criticise these campaigns for trying to improve their immediate environment, this doesn't seem like a very strategic or joined up approach from the Council when deciding where to invest. In practice it means that poorer, typically high pollution, high density areas, (often where car ownership is low), get a smaller proportion of the funding in favour of more affluent, lower density neighbourhoods. I would dearly like to see an approach, which prioritised interventions based on the principle of reducing pollution and road casualties and creating public space *where it is most needed*. Funding is limited, so it needs to be directed to where it will have the biggest impact, not just where there are the loudest voices.

Does anyone know of any good, (ideally lesser known) spots not too far from East Dulwich where you can swim?

The assessment went like this. A small but vocal group living on Melbourne Grove petitioned councillors to close their road. A small but vocal group living near the junction of duulwich village / Court lane lobbied the council to close their road. The council responded to the loudest voices, with little reference to the wider area and seemingly no strategic plan. I actually support both schemes believe it or not, as I have come to realise that Southwark only progress through small tactical interventions and that?s better than nothing. But it?s far from how I would like this stuff to happen.

The idea that if you don?t like people playing loud music into the early hours in a residential area then you should ?get a life?, or ?move to the country? is ridiculous. Better advice would be, if you can?t live considerately alongside others, you shouldn?t be living in a city.

The planters have gone in today and look great. Now we need to get something done to make space for people in ED. Whilst I support the measures in the village, why Southwark have identified one of the most affluent and lowest density areas as the priority for creating more space for people is questionable. Let's see some work done over the border quickly please.

thebestnameshavegone Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Car parking is the lowest use of public space ever > devised. Free car parking, doubly so. Totally agree. The amount of public space we give over to motor vehicles and long term car storage is a joke. With typically two lanes of parked cars and two lanes of moving traffic on most residential roads, there is little left for people. That said, CPZs only entrench the idea that cars have an unquestionable right to dominate public space. Personally, I would like to see a lot of space reallocated away from car storage, to prioritising bikes and people.

.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rahrahrah - it looks as if the school didn't want > one - or certainly not where the council wanted to > put it. Quite pointed that the council seemingly > hadn't consulted the school prior to these plans > being drawn up which seems ludicrous to me - and > demonstrates the haphazard and knee-jerk approach > to these things by our elected representatives. > > What do they say about the 6 Ps of > planning/performance......;-) I certainly wouldn't defend the councils approach to 'healthy streets', or consultation in general.