Earl Aelfheah

But why is this a priority for investment? Yes, there are improvements which could be made. Commission a detailed review of any street and it will identify possible improvements? But this is just a perverse way of prioritizing road changes and allocating resources.

More posh cheese on toast!

I have a lucky rabbits foot. I am not superstitious, but apparently they work even if you don't believe in them.

A sensible approach to local traffic management / resource allocation would say: "Let's identify accident black spots and those areas with the highest incidence of speeding and prioritise investment accordingly to ensure the most impact / benefit." The policy we have seems to be: "Let's see which street lobbies the hardest / makes the most noise. Then let's spend money on a report that fails to identify a serious or urgent case for investment..... but then, because the report does (as with any detailed study of any street) identify possible areas for improvement, let?s prioritise spending on addressing these issues.? What is going on?

I used to run to work and back when I was training for the marathon. It was a good way to start the day (harder on the way home). Just as quick as public transport (this says more about public transport than my running abilities by the way). Of course you shower and change when you get to work (why do you think people have backpacks on). Not sure why it should bother anyone. Now a days I do very little exercise at all, to my shame.

So no real problem with speeding, but let's put full width speed bumps in?!

rch Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Don't even get me started about the issue of local > government pissing away unnecessary funds in a > time of extreme budget cuts. This is the THIRD > survey on this non-existent issue that has been > done in the past ten years. > > The report clearly states that the average speed > measurements are 19.5 mph and the 85th percentile > average is 24.4 mph, which wouldn't even trigger > the issuing of a speeding ticket. > > I've been regularly volunteering for the speed > monitoring projects in the area... vehicles on > Barry Road are travelling up to between 30 and 39 > mph in a 20 mph zone... everyone just laughs at > the Melbourne Grove residents for whining about > speed and congestion. > > And I could think of a LOT better things to spend > ?30,000 on... ^this

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ianr Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > And is it really true that London?s air > pollution makes > > your bogeys turn black? > > When I first came to London from Oz that's exactly > what I experienced. It lasted for about six > months. > > What my body did to to make it stop happening I > don't really want to think about. It happens only when you travel on the Tube. There is so much dust down there.

This has the hallmarks of solution looking for a problem.

It seems odd that the Council should want to restrict day time use of a garden. Anyone have more info?

Whilst it would not surprise me at all if this is true, Guido Fawkes is not always the most reliable of sources.

It's a safe area. Crime rate is 'average' and has been falling for a number of years. Check out http://maps.met.police.uk/ for details.

steveo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's gangland down there mate Don't be mean

I had a good day yesterday. Bit of a sore head this morning though

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Good or bad? Indifferent. One boring chain > replacing another. There are already better places > to grab a coffee, but I'm sure it will do OK. ^this.

That is outrageous. I hope he's OK.

There are loads of chains in Peckham and I don't think a Costa is evidence of gentrification anymore. They're everywhere.

Would be absolutely fantastic if it happens.

Interesting, I wonder where that is?

Who can't park in 'their' street. It's nonsense. Who'd want to stop people (like healthcare workers and teachers) travelling to the area they work in? In the majority of cases I think it's just people wanting to be right outside their house (like directly in front of it) every single time they park, because they're territorial about it. I'm sure there are a few exceptions to this, but mainly that's what it's about.

Thanks ed_pete, so I think I'd misunderstood what was being proposed - this will just apply to areas which have controlled parking int he first place as opposed to being something which is introduced universally? It would be much easier to justify if it was cost neutral / non-revenue raising - so that there was a commensurate decrease in charges for low emission vehicles (as opposed to just raising income on those vehicles that are less efficient).

Does any other Borough, or local authority tax vehicle emissions?

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The current administration has budgeted to > introduce emissions based parking permits. They > propose to announce the details this summer but > anticipate making a scheme that will raise > ?350,000 over the next two years. With thousands > diving prematurely from air pollution we need to > do something to remove the worst polluting > vehicles. But deciding how much to raise and then > creating a scheme doesn't appear the best way to > do this. > So if we were ever asked again locally about > controlled parking it would have quite a different > context. Vehicle Excise Duty already does this. What is Southwark playing at?

This confused the hell out of me, as I thought half the thread had been deleted. Then I realised that there are two separate threads on this. Anyway, as per many of the observations made on the other thread, I'm not convinced there is much of a problem.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/08/despite-nicky-morgan-academies-u-turn-schools-till-in-a-mess