first mate

ZT hear hear.

People tend to adhere to rules they know will be enforced and ignore those that are not...not condoning this in this case, but it is human nature. 20mph was imposed on the basis drivers would self regulate. As one might expect, some drivers self regulate the majority seem not to bother. If speed cameras are to now be used then there needs to be some warning that self regulation is to be replaced with enforcement by speed camera; I think that is fair and reasonable, especially if the stated aim is to make roads safer rather than generate income.

Again, perhaps our local councillors can tell us?

Well done Jenny, please keep us updated. Amongst the five who signed the deputation request is their a councillor name attached?

I think we should pay close attention to developments in our area and how many are manipulating the system, successfully it would seem, to avoid inclusion of social housing. The further poorly paid staff have to travel in each day, because they cannot afford to live more centrally, whether renting or owning, the worse their performance is likely to be. Public transport is also increasingly stressful. they are unlikely to cycle. Poorly paid staff include low grade care and hospital workers. Do we really want them to feel stretched and resentful, as many do? Until this directly affects you or your family, you will not figure the knock on effects of the way developers and this govt are skewing the housing market. The 'we need more housing' mantra is empty as housing is being created for the wrong sector.

Good point Spider,seems reasonable to tell locals about significant changes in their locale. This is a local imposition, 20 mph is not city wide. Could James let us know if enforcement by camera is imminent?

If there are to be new enforcement cameras I hope that Councillors give fair warning. It currently takes a tremendous effort of will and nerves of steel to stick to 20mph when many behind you are revving and trying to force you to go faster. Sometimes it feels safer to go faster simply to avoid to avoid frequent and reckless overtaking that goes on. There is also some pretty dangerous power cycling going down, cutting across cars at full throttle with no signalling, being just one example.

I think it is all the empty and manipulative rhetoric about how enhancing this development will be for the local area, providing a great backdrop to the park and adding value for all - really vomit inducing.

Jeremy, yes it is, it is there in the detail. ITATM, agree with all you say and also noticed the selective description trotted out for existing businesses. An oversized, incongruous development, happy to bulldoze existing, flourishing businesses literally off the premises.

Looks like vet does not figure.

James, what no plan at all? You see that doesn't sound reassuring.

It is really hard to know why resurfacing would take so long. Perhaps Councillor Barber can shed some light on this?

Still, once it is done pedestrians will have a 'nicer' experience, so has to be worth it. I quote JB from an earlier thread last year " The NXR/LL has a number of pedestrian movements but primarily these works are to make this junction more pleasant and a better experience."

ed-pete, Yes I know, I was actually making a wider point about all the various roadworks and mooted road changes in the area, of which Nx road is one and Townley another.I was also pointing out, in response to Foxy, that Townley, is having sewage pipes relaid as part of larger scale works, inferring that laying of similar piping at Nx does not mean sewage is the primary reason for the works...convoluted, I know. I cited the above as I thought Sue had queried changes being made to Townley, but rereading I now see she thought I was talking about changes to Nx. No matter, it is my understanding that Nx pavements onto LL are being built out- the pavement will be considerably wider and the rationale for this was to make it a 'nicer' experience for pedestrians. I also recall talk of bike racks being put there but don't know if that is still on. However, you are right, I have taken the thread off track, so will now shutup!

Hi Sue, From S'warks website, though see other threads where more recent info on changes is cited by Woodwarde What are the proposed changes? ? Removal of existing staggered pedestrian crossings with the implementation of shorter, single movement facilities. ? Introduction of a diagonal pedestrian crossing to link footways adjacent to both schools and cater for an existing pedestrian desire line. ? All pedestrian facilities to operate at the same time to reduce waiting time for pedestrians and improve the efficiency of the junction. ? Cycle pre-signal on Townley Road and Green Dale to allow cycles to enter the junction and undertake turning movements before general traffic. ? New signalised cycle gates on both Townley Road and Green Dale where cyclists are held on a red signal whilst general traffic movements operate. This removes the risk of both left hook and right hook collisions. (Please note that more confident cyclists will still be allowed to use the general traffic lane to traverse the junction from either Townley Road or Green Dale). ? Semi-segregated cycle lane and advanced cycle waiting area on East Dulwich Grove (westbound) to allow cyclists to bypass waiting vehicles and gain priority at the junction. ? Footway buildouts to reduce crossing distances for pedestrians and to visually improve the streetscape. ? New two stage right turn facilities for cyclists to assist right turning movements into either Townley Road or Green Dale from East Dulwich Grove. ? A semi-segregated cycle lane is proposed on Townley Road to allow cyclists to safely pass queuing traffic and access the cycle facilities at the junction. ? A new segregated cycle lane is proposed linking Calton Avenue with Townley Road to allow cyclists to bypass the Calton Avenue / Townley Road junction. ? All existing turning movements at the junction are retained, including for coaches. ? There will be a slight loss of capacity over the existing layout but the junction will continue to operate within acceptable levels of saturation.

You can make as many changes to road speed, junction design etc.. as you like, but until changes are enforced there will be the few or many, who do what is easiest for them. I don't see that loads of speeding cyclists is going to be pleasant or easy, let alone safe. I guess more people, frustrated at car journeys and poor public transport may buy scooters and motorbikes. The 20mph issue remains and even in the centre of ED impatient drivers try to force others over 20mph. Speed/ impatience/ the need to get somewhere fast/ are facts of modern life and I don't think the foregoing, so long as they are unenforced are solutions.

DF, green piping has also been newly laid at Townley, at some point since the works there began. i was told by a guy on site that this is a necessary part if changing the whole junction, so presumably the same applies to Nx. If it is solely about renewing sewage and drainage pipes, then I stand corrected.

The reason for this, and I loosely quote our Councillor, is to make that area a better experience for pedestrians. The other unstated reason seems that it is one small piece in a larger reworking of ED highways, roads and paths, designed to increase cycling, reduce parking and reduce car ownership/use. Therefore you have the deeply unpopular Townley redesign, attempts to make Melbourne a closed street and creation of restricted parking in places where there was none. It has been noted that the timing of this attempt to radically change our lives has fallen at a similar time that at least two and possibly 3 major building projects( the two new schools and M&S) are soon to start, and which will probably create even more obstruction and chaos, since we know how little oversight there is of developers and builders in the borough. I walked right past Townley on Friday at around 11am expecting to see workmen scurrying around, but no, a few ambled aimlessly while another hovered around a stationary small digger, no work going on. I see the boards state no expectation of completion before end of month. It all feels rather perverse and the only person who seems the least bit concerned is an ex councillor, our current rep seems to withdrawn from discussion.

Yes, me too. Think it may be a pointed wind up.

Part of me wonders if this is a windup, designed to make dog owners worried about going to the park? I am hoping the OP comes back on to clarify.

This needs to be reported to park authorities and police. Local vets should be warned and if any truth in the matter the type of poison located and identified asap. How awful.

Rch, Yes it does clearly state in the PA that tree is protected but then 'accidents' happen, don't they. Great idea about the petition for joined up thinking on traffic and roads, we do need to get a handle in this. MT, You've got me. I read something somewhere about work beginning on M&S but cannot think where. James Barber will know.

Rch, Yes, the piecemeal nature of all this is likely, in my humble opinion, to cause chaos before very long. I cannot decide if this is accident or design. I also fear for the mature tree outside the police station. All it would take is slip of some piece of machinery.

I see James has announced in another section that Harris Primary (old police station) is to start building/demolition early August, so I am wondering if he knows yet what sort of disruption this is likely to bring to that part of LL and surrounding streets? There are extensive roadworks at the junction of Nx and of course all the stuff at Townley etc.. The extensive M&S build right opposite Nx will also begin soon. Townley is to be closed until end August/ Sept and guys on site inferred could be much longer. How interesting that all these things are to 'kick off' at round about the same time??? It might make sense to stagger them to minimise disruption?

So key questions ducked again, really disappointing. I have no faith in this process now. Any feasibility study will result in a 'consultation' where the 'debate' will happen and where ' voices' will be heard but we all now know that these consultations are just a fig leaf. As I have said before, the councillors representing us are as one on this; dissenting voices will be screened out by massage of stats and 'evidence'. Councillors can also appear to support voices of protest while using superior knowledge of the byzantine twists and turns of council process to ensure things get through. Sorry to seem so darn cynical but this is exasperating.