ianr

Lowlander Wrote: > A Beckenham junction to London Terminals season > ticket is ?1316 and would allow you to make those > journeys ( as it allows you to take any train to > any south London terminal station apart from > Waterloo) Even Waterloo, and City Thameslink, according to http://ojp.nationalrail.co.uk/service/seasonticket/search, if you enter Beckenham Junction, London Waterloo, All options. Same price as one from Kent House, and additionally seems to allow travel from Clock House.

"Update - 7 September 2015 We have today published the Responses to Issues Raised document. Click here to view a copy of the Responses to Issues Raised document" https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/tube/bakerloo-extension

> The form states that they've gone for the grounds of "failure of the Council to give notice of a decision." I think that line is just one of the two alternatives for appeal printed on the form, that they could have crossed out. See sections 9 and 23 here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1995/419/contents/made

See also the Quietway Events and Consultation pages available via https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/. There was a presentation at the Community Council yesterday. (In fact there's already a thread on it: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1451849,page=3)

The consultation documents are here: https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/proposal-on-the-provision-of-court-and-tribunal-es

I see that the agenda for tomorrow's CC meeting (7pm, St Barnabas Hall, Calton Ave, SE21 7DG) includes a deputation against a barrier. and an accompanying submission: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s56424/Melbourne%20Grove%20Submission%20-%20Dulwich%20CC%209%20September%202015.pdf (141kB) which I was glad to read.

(A) Thanks (B) But what if © someone wants to use (D) ( ) around a B?

It's still the case -- has been since I first subscribed - that anyone typing B ) without a space before the bracket gets it interpreted by Phorum software as a shortcut for the smiley B). It's turned up recently at http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,1570476,1570482, http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1536718,1542346, and http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1536718,1537161. Is it not worth removing that mapping? It's trivial to do, and will take effect the next time the system is set up. You just need to remove the relevant line for the "cool" icon reference in the list defining $MOD_SMILEY_DEFAULT_SMILEYS, which begins round about line 25 of file \mods\smileys\smileyslib.php. Or you could comment it out by placing a # at the start of the line. Anyone who actually wants to use that smiley -- I've not seen a non-accidental use of it here ever -- will be able to find an external link to one fairly easily.

I shared the same scepticism about the use of the CGS capital fund for a mere feasibility study. I accept that there is some delegation to CC councillors, but I'm still left wondering whether that allows them to override the stated objectives of the scheme. I see also that the council officers' 18 June briefing to councillors (copied to the thread on p.15) says that, in addition to the police traffic count made in April, the council did their own speed and volume survey in February. Where can the results of the latter be seen? I'm also wondering why on earth the police one was then commissioned. Whatever budget it's on, it's also paid for from public funds. If you look at the PDF document on what I take to be the SR4 system used for doing the police survey -- it's downloadable from http://www.pwssigns.com/traffic-counter-sr4 -- you can see that all manner of analyses and graphics are available from the software; all, I expect, more or less at the push of a button. Is it known why these aren't also available to us, or how much extra, if anything, they would cost, or why at least the spreadsheet-ready raw data couldn't be available?

LalKJ Wrote on 25 June (page 1): ------------------------------------------------------- > 1. what can't be disputed is that there are a number of speeding cars down Melbourne Grove and > that there is a lot of traffic - over 15,000 in a week and categorised by the police as excessive > for a residential road of its nature. Can someone please provide a source or citation for this police categorisation. Can someone also please tell me the times and locations in MG South when this speed and volume are seen as at their worst.

Of 55,918 cars in the 2014 sample of free-flowing traffic on built-up roads in Great Britain with a 30mph speed limit: Average speed: 30 mph Proportion exceeding limit: 45% Proportion exceeding limit by more than 5 mph: 15% (From Table SPE0102 at www.gov.uk/government/statistics/free-flow-vehicle-speeds-in-great-britain-2014). The attached time series and time-of-day graph are from some of the other tables. The contents page for more related PDF reports and Excel datasheets is at www.gov.uk/government/collections/speeds-statistics.

www.royalmail.com/personal/receiving-mail/delivery-to-neighbour

XIX, according to a Southwark News report of 2 July, http://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/10k-boost-for-road-safety-campaigners-in-dulwich/ Cllr James Barber said: ?The deputation was particularly impressive. They had six speakers and a group of around fifteen to 20 supporters. They had put together a marvellous information pack." I don't know if the pack was circulated at the 24 June CC meeting, or when/if it or any parts have been formally submitted. It wasn't included in the documents accompanying the agenda at http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListMeetings.aspx?CId=176&Year=0, hasn't been added since, and the minutes are still not up.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 3. "the Council considers traffic noise is excluded from Part III of the Environmental > Protection Act 1990. This means that the Council has no direct responsibility in relation to either > the investigation or mitigation of noise from traffic. The act treats noise and vibration as the same" That traffic noise is not specifically deemed a "statutory nuisance" seems to be borne out by s.79 of EPA1990, unless there's any case law to the contrary. "s.79(1) Subject to subsections (1A) to (6A) below, the following matters constitute ?statutory nuisances? for the purposes of this Part, that is to say? ..... (ga) noise that is prejudicial to health or a nuisance and is emitted from or caused by a vehicle, machinery or equipment in a street ...... 6A) Subsection (1)(ga) above does not apply to noise made? (a) by traffic, ... ..... (7) In this Part? ..... ?noise? includes vibration; " http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/section/79 I don't know if there are any other heads under which a council might be responsible. A part of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges ( DMRB ) dealing with noise and vibrations, is at http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/dmrb/vol11/section3/hd21311.pdf (826kB ). It does mention an EEC Directive requirement to assess the effects of noise from projects, and also provides guidance on monitoring and the legislative framework, including provisions for compensation. Where it itself fits in the legislative framework, if at all, I've no idea yet.

Wouldn't this be better posted in the General section rather than the lounge? If someone lives in ED, it's directly relevant to them.

> What was the jist of it? Concluding para: "It seems to me that the rise and fall of Kids Company makes an extremely eloquent case that social provision for vulnerable youngsters is far, far too important to be left to private philanthropy, subcontracted to charismatic eccentrics, or used as the basis for an ideological experiment in Burkean conservatism. It?s sad Kids Company has collapsed. It?s sadder still that it had to exist in the first place." http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/sam-leith-lessons-for-the-tories-of-the-kids-company-collapse-a2414676.html

For just a group run and the possibility of making contacts, you could have have a look at http://www.parkrun.org.uk/events/events/. Some of the venues, like Wimbledon Common, will be more x-countrylike than others. I've no current knowledge of clubs, but there's at least http://www.herculeswimbledonac.org.uk/Cross-Country.html and http://hernehillharriers.org/athletics-training-sessions-for-youngsters/. I think Hercules have always been strong on x-c. Good luck to him/her.

LB of Richmond FoI query response, March 2012: Average costs of relaying / replacing pavement: ?15 / ?23 per square metre. http://www.richmond.gov.uk/home/council_government_and_democracy/data_protection_and_freedom_of_information/freedom_of_information/foi_log/foi_log_search/foi_case_details.htm?id=12786 I suppose a long stretch might make for some economy of scale.

Sorry, itatm, my mistake. I'd assumed that the Southwark source had been an .xlsc, which it was't. Anyone who doesn't have Windows Office could install a free alternative such as https://www.libreoffice.org/ which should enable them to read and write most Office documents such as spreadsheets.

No need for ignorance. Siduhe (7 July, p.7) has already uploaded the Southwark historic traffic survey data spreadsheet, in the older .xls format, here: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/file.php?5,file=184603 While looking at that page I myself discovered the recent MG survey report, uploaded here by James at http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/file.php?5,file=184722.

intexasatthe moment Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thanks James . > > Is there any data I could access that shows > traffic levels in Southwark streets ? As two of us mentioned here (pp 3 & 4) on 26 June, there is historic data at http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/3056/transport_data. The MG South figures appear close to those recently reported. A useful exercise. Colour the Melbourne Grove rows in that spreadsheet to make them distinctive. Then try ordering the spreadsheet by increasing (a) av. no vehicles, (b) av. speed © 85th percentile speed, and in each case observe where the Melbourne Grove readings come within the rank order, and the range of values.

thejournalist Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ...Or timelapse. Looking for good shots for BBC website. Are you an employee of the BBC, or are you looking for something to sell to them? [Ed] Ah! Presumably the former. http://www.trystanyoung.co.uk/newsroom/

ED_moots Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Front page of the local paper. 10/10 for effort The full article: http://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/10k-boost-for-road-safety-campaigners-in-dulwich/

Thanks for posting that. I had two spontaneous computer shutdowns, with no faults loggged, at 18:27 and 19:15. There was no obvious sign of a power cut, but the coincidence in time is enough for me not to worry about any more system checks for the time being.

rch Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 1. The Traffic Survey from April 11-24, 2015, which measured the speeds on Melbourne Grove, was > done by a consultant called Applied Traffic (http://www.appliedtraffic.co.uk/ ) at the request > of the MPS, but the survey wasn't done by MPS, am assuming that the funding came from them. > > 2. The total average speed measured in the two week exercise was 19mph Northbound and 18mph > Southbound, which is under the 20mph Southwark limit. 85% of the traffic wasn't going any faster > than 25mph, which is technically not high enough to issue a ticket. 15% of traffic was going at > 26mph or higher, but highest speed is unspecified in the report. Similar to the figures recorded in 2009. Melbourne Grove South - Period beginning 1 July 2009 Direction Av. All Vehicles/day Av. Speed 85th Percentile Speed Northbound 908 18.2 22.4 Southbound 1127 17.9 21.7 152 were cycles or m/cycles Melbourne Grove North - Period beginning 2 July 2009 Direction Av. All Vehicles/day Av. Speed 85th Percentile Speed Northbound 2486 18.9 22.4 Southbound 2218 19.0 23.5 254 were cycles or m/cycles Source Spreadsheet: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/9631/traffic_flow_data Web page: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/3056/transport_data [Ed: bold terminator added]