first mate

Very deliberate long game by council to get mass CPZ. They have been single- minded and determined, never missing an opportunity to heap more pressure onto car owners. Ostensibly this has been to force people out of cars thereby improving air quality and health (though the stresses of negotiating travel by public transport and bicycle may be less than healthy for some).It will be interesting to see if car ownership really is significantly reduced and air quality improves or it will all have been for nowt.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > It's one thing to think that there should be a > > strategy for encouraging people out of cars > (I'd > > agree) and another to just close one or two > roads > > (regardless off the knock on effects). This is > not > > going to lead to a step change in car use, it's > > just going to concentrate the impact of cars in > > certain areas. > > That's why an area wide strategy is required, > definitely just closing one road won't do it. But > once one road is closed, why not look at how the > additional traffic in other areas can be dealt > with by more road closures (as I suggested > earlier, for example, closing off some of the > toastrack roads to keep traffic on the main > arteries) rather than just campaigning to reopen > that road? All reopening Camberwell Grove bridge > will do is concentrate the impact of cars back in > that area, that won't lead to a change in car use > either. > > Nobody has mentioned in this discussion the effect > (back on topic, taper) the bridge closure has had > on the traffic outside DKH primary school - where > once there were queues stretching back to the > Grove and beyond, now it's rare to see more than a > couple of cars waiting at the lights. A before > and after comparison of playground pollutant > levels would have been interesting. The problem is you are not trying to persuade by road closure you are forcing. Some of your arguments in terms of pollution levels etc are persuasive and in time I think people who can cycle will be more and more inclined to do so when they can but for now let's keep a main road into and out of the area open for use by the majority, not only a highly vocal minority who think they know best.

Hi rch, That Southwark document you link to mentions 'civil enforcement officers' in regard to parking and double yellows. Does that term refer to community wardens or could it relate to imminent PSPOs and companies contracted to enforce...?

Thanks Sally for clarifying, hoping it opens to 'more' traffic soon.

Let's hope and pray the answer is no.

Oh well, I think a fair few on here want CG bridge back open for most traffic. There's been no really persuasive or compelling argument to suggest otherwise. Hoping common sense prevails.

CG has long been an important route into and out of this part of town, it is needed. The evidence is the clogging on other roads.

Sally, in short the public highways should be open to use by all within reason. It is therefore reasonable to ask that a major aterial route is useable for those in 4 wheeled vehicles. As an aside, every route would be more pleasant to cycle along if it was closed to all motor traffic but it is hardly the basis for a proper discussion about the future of this main road.

I regularly find shards of glass all over the park, another example of littering that is both dangerous and seemingly unreported. Should there be a ban with fines for those taking glass items into the park? Lee I think you make some intersting points. You cannot have mass use of playing fields, especially by children, if dogs are able to run round free. There was talk some years ago of Harris partly sharing the financial burden of running PR. The tunnel vision the Council has about dogs in the park makes you wonder.

People need to be more aware of the Council's push to introduce Public Space Protection Orders and what this could mean for us all, not just dog owners. A recent Panorama employed secret filming to show how councils are using these orders to generate income. The job of 'policing' is handed over to a private company. It was revealed that employees were concocting charges and making up evidence to garner more fines. They work on commission.

Casting a garden in shade will not sway planning. New buildings and home extensions all over ED cast neighbouring homes and gardens in shade and get passed evey day.

That is really bad news. Is tbe child okay? Were these dogs off lead at the time?

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi first mate, > We have no CGS underspend to reallocate. > The next round of CGS should open for applications > in October/November. James, yes no underspend for allocation because it seems the money has been spent on other things viewed as more important. I also echo Abe's question.

I'd be interested in hearing the rest rch. Hi James... apparently there's going to be an underspend added to the devolved highways budget amount this year, to use up before the ward boundary changes... I suspect that's why everything is delayed for the moment, as calculations take place. But having an additional CGS top up amount available would help to address various lengths in a sensible manner. For instance, my refused CGS bid for "sections" of Lordship, assessed in tandem with engineers, might have been able to cover the costs of new granite pavements in the section running north from North Cross up to Frogley. The temporary pavement repairs aren't lasting, so it makes sense to work our way up and down Lordship with new paving where possible. The situation with Chesterfield, Ashbourne, and a section of EDG is more complicated... it's now actually being flagged by the council's algorithm calculations, but they are only going to be done in sections as well because of funding issues. There's more, but am trying not to post long posts... -------------------- Robin Twitter: @ex_cllr_rch

Thanks for that Robin, it'll be interesting to see if that underspend is used on street maintenance or gets diverted.

Sally, I have had a closer look and am reasonably sure fixing broken pavements is not on the agenda of this group, almost certainly as you suggest because it becomes a legal minefield in terms of H&S and liability. For the elderly, those with visual or mobility issues, wheelchair and stick users, or even perfectly healthy folk, cracked, uneven paving is a menace and should be a spending priority, no matter where the council funds come from- in my opinion anyway. The Council should focus on the boring task of proper maintenance of what already exists and get that right first, before playing with scant funds to create that which does not. I also agree with Robin's earlier point that the needs of ED are likely to be different from those north of the borough, so we need Councillors to listen to all local requests, rather than making political agendas the funding priority.

Robin, yes I agree. Sally, I looked at the link, thank you. I could not see a section on mending paving. Are volunteers even allowed to do this?

Rendel, My post was clearly in response to Ed History's question. No mention of secrecy or shady dealings on my part. I am however interested that so much money seems to have been allocated to something for which there is arguably less need than say mending broken pavements. Mynamehere I do sometimes cycle...not sure what point you are trying to make? I am not anti cycling, this is not a them and us debate. I am concerned that in these cash strapped times council funds are spent in ways that have greatest benefit for everyone. However, dull, mundane issues like fixing broken paving are unlikely to garner political support. People do not tend to campaign about such issues either. Strong, well organised campaigns with clear agendas are much more politically attractive and may have a disproportionate influence on spending.

Sally Eva appears to be involved in the highly proactive group, Southwark Cyclists, and seems to be responsible for their blog page. The group has been actively campaigning for cycle hangars and are trying to encourage all local cyclists to get bike hangars installed on their streets by approaching Southwark 6 at a time. The organisation is touting the line: The first rule of bike hangars is to tell everyone about bike hangars...or something like that. Judging by reports from the Community Council on use of devolved funds this is a very influential organisation with our local decision makers.

Removed as posted on wrong thread.

While this is undoubtedly nice for families that own bikes I cannot see why money is ring-fenced without a clear need. It seems this money has been allocated and now councillors are touting around asking who would like a bike hangar. Meantime, local footpaths are a wreck and some even dangerous but apparently there is no way this money in need of a home can be spent on improving and making them safe. Crazy. On another thread RCH posted: I was dismayed to hear ED councillors allocating ?30,000 in CGS underspend funds to bike hangars at Monday night's DCC meeting. I can't tell from the disjointed public reports whether this is in addition to the approx ?25,000 allocated to bike hangars at the last DCC meeting or whether the ?25,000 was upped to ?30,000. But this is definitely in addition to the approx ?50,000 of CGS, in total, which has been allocated to Melbourne Grove "traffic calming measures" in the southern part of the road which has an average speed of 19mph. BTW, the conversion of the existing speed cushions into speed humps has now been approved so an engineer is now being paid to work on the detailed design. So I think we may be looking at almost ?100,000 of devolved public money in East Dulwich being spent on speed humps and bike hangars? This is why I just want to scream when I hear the excuse of "budget cuts" being used to block works and services that the community is continuously campaigning for... --------------------

On their website Parkhill say they are responsible for completetly changing the face of Lordship Lane in ED..

Nigello, I do agree and I actually walk a lot and sometimes cycle too, but currently would find it near impossible to work without a car. My beef is not with the issues driving change but the manner in which change is being forced through at top speed by various impositions. Single factor issues With simplistic solutions are politically attractive and appeal to the idealist in all of us but I think current efforts to clear streets of traffic before we've even properly addressed and fixed a train service, may create more problems than it solves.

Rendel, Clearly, cycling walking and relyng on public transport works for you. Jolly good for you. Not everyone is so fortunate or has only regular daily work journeys of between one and a half and three miles. Equally, for a fair few, there will be a need to ferry tools and equipment to and from jobs- more than will fit into a couple of panniers or a rucksack. There are myriad reasons why your chosen forms of travel will not work for everyone. Add to that the parlous state of local rail services and these measures to force through change at top speed look almost bonkers.

They have more or less said the agenda is to drastically reduce car ownership and thereby cars on the roads. They want us all to cycle and walk. They are clearly prepared to pursue that agenda ruthlessly. It seems local reps, even outside Swark Labour, also support this agenda. Fanaticism trumps pragmatism.