Scootingover

Done

I hope this raises the needed funds to support an alternative proposal backed with expert opinion. The Southwark approved one will not work and they've been told that but don't listen. Great idea to commission this work.

pr5ined Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi James > > Is there an email list available so that we can > further issue emails to all councillors and > relevant cabinet members re this proposal? pr5ined, Active Cllr support on this came from Helen Hayes (who described the proposals as a sledgehammer to crack a nut), Andy Simmons, Michael Mitchell and chair Jon Hartley. Helen clearly a good point of contact as both local Cllr and MP. EMAIL to Helen Hayes, MP for Dulwich and West Norwood and Councillors: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] There is an earlier and separate thread on this matter. See Dulwich Community Council: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1649080 This current thread from JB smacks of political/self interest. What we want is all our Cllrs to understand that this is a real and concerning issue and work individually to determine where double yellow lines are warranted vs gratuitous. Contact them all - don't put your eggs in any self-promotional basket.

richard tudor Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Southwark want this so it will as you say be last > and will get passed through on the nod. > Doubt Barber and co will say a word against it. > Doubt many people will even know it is happening. The detail for agenda item 17 says: The Southwark Constitution sets out that the Dulwich Community Council will take decisions on local non-strategic matters. These include the introduction of road markings, the introduction of waiting and loading restrictions, the setting of boundaries for consultation on traffic schemes and the determination of objections to traffic management orders that do not relate to strategic or borough-wide issues. If our Councillors do not draw breath on this one, and seek justification and evidence, then question why we need them.

The 10m is Highway Code guidance and not legislation. 10m would apply on very fast roads and limited visibility where cars pull out into fast moving traffic. On quiet residential roads now restricted to 20mph? Highly questionable. These proposals recognise this and indicate 7.5m. Still too much, if necessary at all. Make your voice heard to your Councillors before the DCC as this decision is made by them.

It will be interesting to see what happens when the Council has a better discussion with residents because they were not consulted properly and are not supportive. This is not the 50-70 something landscape by any means. Where is the evidence for that? On the bus the other week, I was held up because residents had barred the main road by moving the barriers. They said that they were fed up with being blocked in when others on the buses could move easily and they wanted to make their views known.

Good to see that there has been consideration of all feedback and the accompanying traffic monitoring numbers. While some roads will remain closed and so continue the experiment, the majority will be re-opened. There is therefore a new experimental TMO as noted below. The Lambeth website is down so I cannot provide a link to it. Extract: Having examined all the evidence presented in the eight-week review report, I have taken the decision to re-open Loughborough Road, Barrington Road, Lilford Road and Gordon Grove from Wednesday 25 November. Padfield Road and Calais Street will remain closed under a new Experimental Traffic Management Order. The road closures were part of a wider vision to improve the public space in Loughborough Junction, make it a safer and more pleasant place to live and help the area become a destination in its own right, rather than a busy through road for traffic to and from central London. That ambition for Loughborough Junction is clearly shared, even though it appears that a majority of residents remain opposed to particular road closures. It was important to trial this ambitious scheme as an experiment so we could monitor the impacts closely. Having reviewed the evidence and listened to a wide variety of people in the area; it is clear that changes are needed but that the ultimate vision remains. I hope to utilise the passion and strength of opinion that has been demonstrated on all sides over the last few months and bring people together to help guide the future of Loughborough Junction. Over the coming weeks I will invite representatives from local businesses, ward councillors, community groups including LJAG, Loughborough Estate Management Board, Loughborough Estate TRA and the newly formed LJ Road Madness to join me and council officers on a steering group to begin the design work for public space improvements. We will start with an open mind and welcome all ideas and contributions; there is money to spend from Transport for London, which if we work together and get it right, can make a positive and lasting difference to Loughborough Junction. The experimental nature of the road closures made it difficult to communicate the wider benefits and vision for the area, and signage in some areas at the start of the trial was either unclear or ignored. Also, by focusing communications on the residents of Loughborough Junction, road users who travel through the area from further afield felt uninformed which undoubtedly led to confusion in the early stages. However, it is clear from the review that more people are making journeys by foot and by bicycle through the area and I sincerely hope that continues. Eight weeks was not enough time to provide any empirical evidence regarding response times and the Ambulance Service and Police did not oppose the continuation of the scheme, but the recent formal objection raised by the London Fire Brigade and anecdotal reports of increasing response times cannot be ignored. That is why we will reopen Loughborough Road, Barrington Road, Lilford Road and Gordon Grove. The process of removing signs and road markings will take a few days so to avoid confusion all restrictions will remain in place until Wednesday 25 November.

davidk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not my photo - But I believe they were still in > place yesterday. OK so the photo is not a great help. Anyone actually know the facts on the barriers and penalty charges and what is in place today? I'll be via that way on public transport (because this is the mode of transport that I rely on) at peak times when the impact is very severe and so can check myself in any case. I get why some (but certainly not all) cyclists are in favour. I can see why others are not and the impact on public transport users and residents/passers through. This development was not supposed to be for cyclists.

And again interesting as the LJ development was NOT supposed to be driving the cycling agenda but I can see your focus. messageRe: Dangerous junction for bikes: Peckham rye and Nunhead lane new Posted by davidk Today, 10:17AM The Southwark branch of the LCC has been campaigning for segregated tracks down that side of the Rye and on into Rye Lane to hook with Burgess Park and the various quiet routes down there. That would solve your problem but it has met predictably stiff opposition. I'm sure your support would be appreciated: [southwarkcyclists.org.uk]

davidk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Agreed scootingover. > > And at the moment we only have usable roads for > motor vehicles. So what's to be done? Davidk - your photo does not show the barriers. Have they been removed?

Am I mistaken that the trial ended and the blocks removed? The days of evaporation are long gone. Just gridlock moved around. Safe for cyclists but we need usable roads for all Please.

Agree. Cyclists need to be safe and catered for but so do the rest of road and public transport users. Stats used again to justify........... BrandNewGuy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Those are very naughty stats, Blah Blah. > 1 cyclist on one bike = one journey. > 70 people on one bus = one journey. > 300 people on one train = one journey.

Utterly bonkers - Southwark and TfL. Not an ounce of sense between them but enough bravado and self interest to spend public taxes and be unaccountable for the failure to deliver. We need a blended plan for a variety of transport to suit all. Cycling is only for and will only suit a small percentage. Welcome it, make people safe, but don't make it an excuse for failing to deliver proper public transport. I use bus, train and tube. Walk loads and will run if I can. No bike. Let's get some balance.

what on earth where they doing?

wulfhound Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So many straw men in .... > > Finally, is Loughborough Junction considered a > cycling scheme at all? I mean - I know they're > leaving it open to bikes, but it seems mostly > about pedestrian space & ultimately > regeneration/gentrification (delete as applicable > depending if you're for or against). It doesn't > really join anything to anything, > cycle-route-wise, and isn't a Quietway or Cycle > Superhighway. Calling it a cycle scheme seems like > a way to guarantee opposition & create a load of > animosity towards people on bikes. Take a look at the Loughborough Junction Action Group (LJAG) tweets perhaps. Seems pretty focused on cycling. LJAG ‏@LJAGgers1 12h12 hours ago Hackney highest level of cycling in Ldn. Blog from cyclist who has recently visited Holland. http://hackneycyclist.blogspot.co.uk/ . Can this happen in LJ?