first mate

Mark T, I'm going to cross post to James thread. He said that the decision was to be called in but has never come back on what happened next.

No appeal letter here...strange. James Barber, are you aware if the appeal ?

TG great, we sort of agree on what I see as the main issue which is lack of consultation. We have an intelligent population why not have the debate properly? Instead people, myself included, are reduced to ranting on the forum because there is little faith in our elected reps to properly listen and represent us when it counts. James appears to support the wilder fringes of those proposing the agenda and there seems little to choose between his take and S'wark Labour, and Charlie Smith who came on here for, I think, only the second time ever, sounded like his mind was already made up and that he would not be listening to those (presumably like me) who "snide" anonymously on the forum. So that's it, loads of objectors dismissed, jus' like that! What to do?

TG, In fairness to TheCat I think she was referring to this particular locale. However, what I find interesting is the wider trend, presumably well under way before the mass meddling began. The issue is that attempts are being made to wildly force stuff through and without proper consultation, therefore it feels experimental. I just want to see the agenda slowed down, let's stand back and see what impact a few changes have, let's consult properly and that way we reduce stress all round whilst, we hope, heading for a better infrastructure that works all round.

I do accept we need to be mindful of that extreme, but change is good if the pace is moderate and considered.

Yes, they have made incremental changes to infrastructure, a ban on high capacity toilet flushes being the most relevant comparison but they have not recommended that within 5 years all flat owners will have to share loos and showers and all homeowners should rip out any bathrooms and replace them with time-limited shower units - that is more like the set of current proposals. Too much, too soon. wulfhound Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @first mate - no, but they did just spend > ?millions, dig up the park for the best part of a > year, permanently rearrange the playground, and > indeed closed some roads (albeit temporarily) to > reduce the impact of rainwater drainage on the > sewer system. Be thankful you don't live or work > near a Thames Tideway Tunnel site. > > They've already banned high-capacity toilet flush > units some years ago - the maximum now is 6 > litres, less than half the standard a few years > ago. Fortunately, better modern engineering means > they're still reasonably.. effective.

Precisely and The Hague does not, for instance, share the cycling success of Amsterdam...why, I wonder?

RB, People are not saying they reject cycling or reject any notion of change, it is the timeframe (5 years to "design out" cars on residential streets and remove parking from main roads)the manner and the complete lack of public consultation and, it would seem, real joined up thinking. In short, ideals trounce commonsense. We keep hearing about Amsterdam and Copenhagen but both have a long history of cycling and have slowly built an infrastucture to support that- it is cultural, we cannot simply try to change London into Amsterdam in a few years. Additionally, I gather Copenhagen now has cycling problems in that cyclists are complaining of cycle congestion.

James, what crashes? Sorry, this is not the amazing improvement you claim. People would have visited the market without any of this. As it is, one pedestrian reports that they recently tripped as the cobbles are so badly laid. When the market is on much of that area is shut to traffic anyhow, so I really don't get the points you are making. Just go a little further down to Upland and Crystal Palace and the paths are appalling and, of course much of the road and pavement now building sites. Those poor shopkeepers are also probably losing trade. What about looking at that?

Wulfhound, I would suggest the changes are not being "done right", if they were I submit that opposition would not be so great. people drive for complex reasons, trying to solve all that in one cackhanded effort is not the way to go.

wulfhound, I see little ire directed at cyclists, many who drive also cycle when they can. Any ire is directed at Council officials who have conceived this agenda and its execution and who claim widespread public support based on consultation. I am glad that cycling, uber etc.. works well for you and your family. For others it does not. That is the reality.

TG, as you have said, it is in part a generational thing, younger people are making choices based on what works best for them and as pressures increase they will arrange their lives to maximise what continues to work best for them, this probably will involve reduction of car use. However, these sorts of largescale societal changes take time to filter through, they cannot be shoehorned in within a few years. The population explosion will place pressure on other infrastructures, sewage and waste water for instance, but we won't be advising people to rip out their toilets and bathrooms, will we? Sorry, a slightly facetious point but the current approach is ill thought out, crude and heavy-handed.

TG, again, no, it is not " encouraging" it is purely punitive and will massively increase levels of resentment and, I suspect, risk taking, creating more danger all round. Stress is also a killer. This is an attempt to solve a very complex issue with a very simple solution- force as many people as possible to stop using a car by clearly and deliberately making life as difficult and uncomfortable as possible, simpulz. In reality it does not work. Most of all, there has been no widespread, public consultation on this. That is an astounding fabrication and distortion. It is also sheer madness and folly to force change without overriding public will. We all have children and young relatives who cycle at every given opportunity, as did many of us at that age...it made financial sense and we were fit enough to do so. But most of these youngsters do not have the same responsibilities that come with age. We do not tend to live in small communities of related, supportive family networks, those responsibilites may require frequent trips well away from home and of the type that might break the bank and brain if only available by public transport. Many of us also have jobs with equipment that cannot be carried in bicycle panniers or carried around on buses etc.., are you suggesting we just find new jobs?

No TG, they do it because they can and it suits them at this juncture. I am not advocating everyone driving into London; many of us need a car for work outside London or other important reasons but, if S'wark has its way, will be simply unable to own and keep one in the near future- sorry that is just not pragmatic and will put a lot of people under a lot of pressure. Again change should happen but not at this speed.

TG, yes space on streets if every private car owner gets rid, but then there will not be enough zip cars for all, given that S'wark wnat to avoid parked cars to amke cycling easier. Nor will people be able to easily access get into country etc.. unless they are fit enough to cycle that far, and let's not get into family commitments and so on. Public transport is unreliable and expensive too. Sorry, as I said, these measures smack of bright eyed fanatacism and not much pragmatism. Agree re Boris but, though undeniably intelligent, he is a master of gesture politics; detail has never been his thing. Wholsale redesigning of our streets and car ownership in 5 years is all about detail.

TG, it is too much too soon and it will create a lot of stress and anger. I accept it is being done with good intentions but it has not been properly thought through, that is evident from everything we have seen thus far. It is also pretty outrageous that claims to full public consultation are being made, when we know this is not the case. People will not have access to cars if they cannot park them and if they are to be 'designed' out of residential streets in 5 years. There is unlikely to be a time in the near and medium future when everyone that might need a zip car at short notice will have access to one- where will all these cars be kept?

I gather there is still demand for investment property so there's your market and I am sure developers will be only too happy to oblige with supply.

Richard Tudour, Until I scanned S'wark Labour's recent 2015 cycling strategy doc, I would have treated your view with some caution, but now find you are correct. The Council is deliberately planning to make car ownership as difficult as it possibly can and in 5 years wants us all to walk or cycle. The key phrases, and I quote, are they will either "calm" or "design out" cars/traffic on residential streets as well as remove parking on any main roads ( extensive double yellow lines then). Of course, they wnat to ensure that these changes cannot be undone so this explains the unseemly haste with which a host of yellow lines, proposed road blocks, changes to routes, rearranging kerbs, 20 mph, etc, etc are suddenly appearing. The greatest scandal of all is that they say we have been extensively consulted on this and agreed to it. If that were so, we would not have the plethora of threads on the subject as residents slowly wake and smell the coffee.

Jeremy, exactly, where is the evidence that developers sit down and think how can we build decent, affordable property for lower waged, first time buyers. The evidence vis a vis markets is on this page, the developer on the site under discussion here could have built 8 flats but dumped that option, chossing instead to build two penthouses...not likely affordable for your average nurse, young teacher et..

Tigres Prides, Yes S'wark Labour, seemingly supported by the Lib Dems, have a five year plan to: "calm" or "design out" cars on residential roads and to remove parking on main roads. This is just the beginning of a series of "exciting" initiatives to get us all out of our cars and walking or cycling everywhere. For anyone who wants to read it it is all there in the latest cycling strategy document which also claims that a fullscale public consultation has taken place ensbling the above to go ahead. Allegedly, we support this. So, our roads and traffic infrastructure are, at great expense, being deliberately torn apart so that we can be managed out of our cars and forced into transport habits deemed most appropriate for us by this Council and its supporters. Meanwhile, on another thread one poster reports that the new and unnecessary, though expensive, works on Nx caused her to trip. Calls for improvement to paving on many streets in the area have been dismissed...not enough money. Councillors are also way too busy rearranging our lives, our roads and waging war on all car owners.

I think he is a senior engineer involved in the various audits and whose reports have identified the same problems with all the meddling that was flagged up ages ago by resudents/objectors to the scheme.

Having skimmed the Southwark document two things really leapt out, the clear aim to calm or 'design out' traffic on residential streets as well as remove parking on busier roads. The second was that allegedly extensive public consultation has been carried out. This is the first I've heard about these much more ambitious plans. According to the document we are just at the beginning of these 'exciting' changes and this is a 5 year plan. I am beginning to think they really intend to make car ownership impossible.

I hope that the shop owners get some sort of compensation for loss of business? It is crazy and I cannot understand how the Council have allowed this to proceed... everything is at the convenience of the developers and hang everyone else.

Are those double yellows new?

Dear Councillor Smith, No doubt 20 mph has been brought in with the best intentions but the reality does not square with them. Please, if you have not already, do drive at various times when traffic is at its worst and try the various hills for yourself? I understand that you hope it'll all turn out for the best but the road to getting there is proving dangerous and stressful all round, and you don't know how long the process of adaptation will take, if ever..I, like many, do not feel it is worth it. No problem with 20 mph on residential roads but not necessary on main artery roads and, it would seem, the police agree?