wulfhound

I think London Fields Lido is still shut - Tooting definitely is. West Reservoir in Haringey looks to be open - likely to be busy with everything else shut, but it's massive so you should be OK.

Kind of agree ed26, I'm a big fan of blocking off side roads where possible, but the banned turns on main roads (and especially BETWEEN main roads) need to be reinstated. I don't know why they didn't reinstate the Grove Hill Road right at the time they blocked off Champion Hill - can only guess that it would have allowed too much traffic to cut through from Avondale Rise.

No, I don't know of it at all. Zero information one way or the other. You could presumably FoI it if you wanted. But equally, I don't think we should dismiss the views of children. Rather, I think their perspective on the world is a valuable one, and that their day to day experiences matter. Do you?

No - and I don't think a 5 year old could comprehend something like the OHS programme. An 8 or 9 year old? Maybe. At least to the limited extent of how it relates to their day to day lives. Which is as much as most of us do, if we're honest. I'm a firm supporter of 16 year olds being be able to vote in elections - they pay tax, they can get married, etc.. Are they a picture of cognitive perfection? Heavens no, but one could point to counter-examples at any age. And they'll be around to live with the consequences a lot longer than the rest of us. That rather depends on whether or not the teachers support it. I'd say they're equally capable of stirring up the PTA's towards an anti response - especially those schools with large catchments and hordes of well-connected parents arriving by car every morning. I don't think _any_ of us, for or against, knows what the outcome will be. Even most of the proponents will have a price that they're unwilling to pay, a set of circumstances that makes the scheme unjustifiable. I'm sure that the council and councillors do. Equally, any rational opponent should, I hope, have a that's-not-so-bad-after-all scenario in mind. (There will be some who just don't like change, or don't agree with the message that change is needed, but I think that's a minority) Personally no, but I don't live that close to this one. I wouldn't be surprised if both camps try to play the numbers game - although honestly I think turning consultations in to a popularity contest as seems to have happened in the last few years is a rather silly distraction from the actual aims of the consultation process (which is supposed to be, to discover and, if necessary mitigate, hardships and disbenefits caused by a scheme). "52:48 YOU LOST GET OVARR IT HA HA" doesn't really do anyone any favours.

Why would adults' responses count for more than childrens'? At least those old enough to read and write. Putting down a me-too response in your 3yr old's name doesn't strike me as fair play. Excluding people on grounds of age seems like a slippery slope to all sorts of unpleasantness. - Ignore all responses by over-75s because they won't be around to live with the consequences of climate change? - Give extra weight to those with ?50k and above salaries because they contribute more in tax & their time is more valuable? Nope, I didn't think so.

https://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/media/6687/explaination_of_experimental_traffic_orders-36785.pdf

@exdulwicher Agree, with a couple of provisos. Firstly, that people trust the council to keep to their word on the "do it right" bit, and not allow cheaply-done temporary schemes to become permanent by the back-door. Public mood here and elsewhere is pretty sceptical about the council and politicians generally... personally I think people are mostly too sceptical about local politicians (who are mostly trying their best, even if we don't always agree with their views), and not sceptical enough about national ones (less said about them, the better).. but in any case, there needs to be trust for this to work. Secondly, that they set some clear and representative criteria that a scheme can be held to account on. Bus journey time delays and air quality measurements on the roads suffering displaced traffic are probably the most important one; traffic volumes on residential roads outside the scheme boundary are another. They have to be able to define "works" and "doesn't work" and be accountable to those measures.

Seems fair to me - worth pointing out that consultations aren't supposed to be a popularity contest - it shouldn't be about how many in favour or against - it should be "does it achieve the aims of the council's strategies, without causing undue hardship, disproportionate damage to businesses" & suchlike. Whether they actually play it that way is a different question, but anybody whose life is made materially worse during the trial (whether due to longer journeys, displaced traffic, loss of trade) should have a right to be heard and their circumstances taken in to consideration. I personally don't see the harm in trying it out for a few months with cheap-and-cheerful materials which can be easily (re)moved if necessary. The schools are still largely out, the main roads are quieter than usual outside rush hour. Don't even think about expensive permanent works until it's been tried though, as it's reasonable to think that alterations might be needed.

@dande I have elderly and car-dependent relatives, although not in this area.. I can understand their trepidation (especially in the light of CV19, a terrifying experience for many), but at the same time this reads a little of hyperbole when weighed against the likely reality of five or ten minutes more in the car a couple of times a week. Unlike OHS, this programme is a trial - they can't make it permanent without a full consultation, at which point those affected will be able to report their lived experience of the outcome. If that turns out to be ten minutes' extra in the car twice a week, that might be a price worth paying. If it ends up being half an hour sat in fumes on the South Circular each way just to get to the GP, much less so. But the only way to find out is to try. I think this viewpoint has been somewhat overblown by people who, overtly or otherwise, want to maintain the status quo. Most if not all of the large mid-C20th housing estates in our area are low-traffic by design: by the time they were built, the problems caused by traffic were widely understood. There are specific roads that need to be kept a close eye on though - Pytchley Road is one that springs to mind, I don't know if any of the current plans are likely to displace traffic on to it, but if so it needs an intervention or rethink.

It's not in the council's gift, at this point. Running bus services is TfL's job, and in principle they can, and should, run more - but it costs money. A lot of it. And TfL's finances are an utter disaster right now - to the extent that they've had to ask for an emergency bailout. The idea of a self-funded transport authority running buses with maximum capacity of 15 people (single-decker) or 20 (double-decker) and breaking even doing so is obviously unviable. Central Government is now running TfL on a very short leash. If you believe, as I do, that public transport is a public good, they are who we need to lobby, but good luck getting anywhere with that. And that, I believe, is why we've landed where we've landed. No more space to accommodate extra cars - and air quality a more critical issue than ever. No more money to run extra buses or trains - and not enough capacity even if they did. We all recognise that there is a proportion of the population who cannot walk, cycle, scoot etc. for most of their trips - but they really do need to get _everybody_ that _can_ to adopt active travel of one sort or another. It seems fair to say that we're still a very long way from that goal (even for fairly narrow interpretations of "can" - for example, "able-bodied, working-age people with less than ten miles to travel") and that drastic interventions are needed.

Bravo @sim1 for showing the way forward. "Be the change you want to see in the world". This echoes my experiences 100%. Bellenden Road on a cargo bike is horrid - many drivers don't give you the extra time or space needed to get around the corners safely. Wish Lambeth would hurry up and build the segregated cycle lane we've been promised for Rosendale. With that plus Southwark's proposals at DV, plus something to address Turney & Burbage Roads (I can't tell if the Village plans will make those two worse or better - anyone?) we'd be well on the way to a comprehensive network.

A low-powered moped is a very different beast from either a bike or a motorbike. Has neither the balance demands of the former, or the terrifying-for-many, exhilarating-for-some acceleration and power of the latter. The talk around the pending legalisation of lightweight e-scooters suggests that those, unlike mopeds, will be able to go anywhere cyclists can, i.e. cycle lanes, cycle paths in parks, and permeable road closures, and therefore away from cars a lot of the time. Could be quite liberating for people who are reasonably agile but for whom bikes aren't an option.

Electric moped, 50cc equivalent? Don't need CBT if you have an old driving license; if you don't have one, it's just a day. No pollution, no C-charge or T-charge. I suspect they're going to have to hurry up and legalise the 250w class e-scooters for road use also, which will be a lot less expensive and likely exempt from CBT, but they'll be speed limited to something pretty slow - 12 or 15mph.

Because they don't need to - traffic is blocked out from the get-go. The permits etc., while certainly in some ways more intrusive and bureaucratic than simply building a house in the middle of the carriageway, create a kind of virtual cul-de-sac that can be ignored in specific situations (say if the major road gets temporarily closed for works, or an ambulance is trying to get somewhere in a hurry).

That you can freely walk, cycle, scoot in and out of - and still drive in and out from one end. Not very gated then - cul-de-sac would be a more accurate description.

All elderly people who can't walk far, or builders hauling van-loads of drywall and 2x4s, if some on here are to be believed. (In all seriousness, probably quite a lot of school staff though.. who do have a certain amount of stuff to carry, but could probably manage with an ebike or moped if so inclined). @mockingbird School Streets typically include a residents' access permit (free, unlike CPZ permits) for people who would be otherwise stranded, and are camera enforced - they are not normally physical barrier closures unless there's a practical way for affected residents to park outside the zone, which is not usually the case.

From personal experience, they just take a different view on the many things that make up the cost/benefit equation. Case in point, many regard cycling as more dangerous than I do (they might very well be right there), or more difficult (mostly through lack of experience - talking about people of similar age and (un)fitness). Once you own a car, it's convenient - I'm certainly no saint, part of the reason I use ZipCar is that I feel the convenience level is about right - there if I really need it, but inconvenient enough that I'll walk instead if I can. And (personal view), most people with cars under-price or discount entirely the knock-on effects: noise and air pollution, road danger, emissions, and clogging up the roads to the expense of those making trips that really do need to be driven. Beyond that, frankly, a lot of people just don't care - either they're selfish, or just not aware of / attuned to the environmental and social consequences. (They're easy to identify - they're the ones that drive like thugs and treat pedestrians like cr*p). Thatcherite mentality basically - I've earned it, I've paid for it, screw the lot of you. And an element of living within ones' means.. because I drive rarely & my partner not at all, we tend to choose destinations (shops, parks, leisure, after-school activities) which are manageable on foot or by public transport. Friends with cars will go further afield to do essentially the same thing. On a personal level, there's no real right or wrong to that, but on a city planning / design level, surely it's right to design for the outcomes the council has decided are appropriate? It's better, but not as much as you might think. The Tube connection is handy for getting to and from Central London (if you live near it), but the Lea Valley, North Circular and A12 are worse barriers than anything we have to deal with. I do hope that TfL are planning some extra buses for the area though - one or two new routes and improved frequency on the existing services would make a huge difference.

That's not true - it just doesn't happen overnight. Thought experiment. Suppose all the roads around London flowed freely and you could reliably travel at the posted speed limit, 24/7. I know for a fact I'd drive a lot more. I suspect we all would. Indeed, because with more regular driving, car ownership would be more economical for me than ZipCars, I'd likely end up driving many of the trips that I walk, bus or cycle at the moment. 40/50 years ago, they tried to build their way out of London's congestion. It didn't work. Neighbourhoods were blighted, and the three lane flyovers they built at enormous financial and environmental cost are still as congested as the South Circular at busy times. Traffic will expand to fit the space available. Spend some time in Birmingham or Los Angeles, for example. The huge catchment areas of the private schools are both cause and symptom of a lot of the driving - anyone can find the Mumsnet threads where people are applying to half a dozen schools that are miles and miles from home. The flip side is, reduce road capacity and the demand for it will shrink. That's not to say it's necessarily a smooth and easy process, but surely smoother and easier than dealing with 2.5c of climate change, or the chronic health consequences of living an inactive lifestyle in a soup of PM10s. But it has been shown to work - the most recent example being Walthamstow Village - huge improvement in air quality, big increases in walking and cycling, and minimal difference in journey time for those vehicles still using the roads. (With the caveat that their public transport is somewhat better than ours).

Over Tulse Hill and along the South Circular seems pretty direct? Slow across the Common at rush hour, granted, but I'm not sure it'd be that much slower than any other way.

It's rather a long way on foot for kids who already have a very early start (no, mine don't go to any of those schools). I'm all in favour of active travel especially for children! But adding 30+ minutes walk each way for schools with an 8:30 start, bearing in mind some of them will be on the coach for 45+ minutes before that, is a bit harsh. It might make more sense for coaches to drop off on Gallery Road near the roundabout, turn around and go back to the South Circular via College Road. That's equidistant from DC and JAGS, more or less, and a more reasonable distance to expect kids with school bags to walk at 8:15am on a dark January morning.

How very patronising. Most Cllrs and Officers are in their 30s, 40s and 50s; many likely to have lived experience of both young children and ageing parents. I'd put it to you that those in the busy middle of life are best placed to try and walk the difficult tightrope of balancing the needs of one generation against another. True. But on typical Council Officer salaries (barring those at the very top), how many do you think can afford to live there? I'd suspect most have to travel in from the southern fringes of the borough or even further afield.

... and if you can't afford ice cream for your kids (even at DP's rather inflated prices), you really ought to think about whether running a car (in an area with good walkability and, by national standards at least, excellent public transport) should be a priority. (Incidentally, I don't see anyone suggesting subsidised ice-cream for those who walk or get the bus and _still_ can't afford it). I'm not sure exactly where Spider lives, but if he's the north side of the Champion Hill closure, there's the 176 along DKH which takes you straight to Upland Road. Or drive to Gallery Road which is about 15 minutes from DKH outside of school run hours, and park for free by Lovers Walk. Granted it's a mare at 8am, but if you have the luxury of choosing when to go, it's hardly slower than before. From even further north (too far to walk to Champion Hill) then there's the 197 or even the train. Buses do carry scooters and toddler bikes - the latter at the driver's discretion, but in general if the bike is small enough to be carried as hand luggage they're OK with it at less-busy times. Same goes for fold-up adult bikes.

Two buses..? If you're the far side of DHFC from the park, you can't be far from either-or the P4 or the 176, both of which will get you directly there. If you have a smartphone, the bus apps are a godsend nowadays. No more guessing if it will turn up - once you know how long your walk takes, you can time it to leave the house 30 seconds before the bus arrives.

New cars from 2022 will have intelligent automatic speed assist (based on GPS and a database of limits) - it's an EU thing but the UK is implementing it anyway. You'll be able to override the limiter by pushing down hard on the gas pedal AFAIK. Just hope it's more accurate than the GPS speed limit indicators in the last couple of rental cars I've driven.

About 15. The north side of Tower Bridge is awful (as you probably know), but once you turn right on to Cable Street it's very well-signposted (CS3) and easy going.