Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Yes. Generally, CG residents want it to remain closed and, not surprisingly, residents in the surrounding areas which have been adversely affected by the closure want to see it opened.


The council want it to open with traffic lights to reduce the volume of traffic.

I'm not sure completely banning cars is an option. Wouldn't it great if we could do that everywhere. Imagine LL without any cars. How pleasant would that be? For a start you could sit outside the Bishop without feeling like you are smoking a car exhaust. The reality is we are stuck with cars so it's a case of how best to manage this. In terms of the Grove, some form of traffic management to reduce volume as proposed by the council seems like a sensible compromise.


When I read statements like this (which is often) I'm never sure if I agree or disagree. The fatalism destroys me but the realism brings out the practical side of me...


Cars are like a lot of things with me - Xfactor, Coldplay, Cars, The Sun (maybe not that last one eh) - I wouldn't be so bothered by any of them if the people who consumed them also did OTHER things


Don't write back in green ink and say that you do do other things - I already know that - I'm talking about the majority

"Ggggrrrrrrrr traffic lights. How do traffic lights REDUCE the volume?"


They could only reduce the volume of traffic crossing the bridge at any one time, thus reducing the volume of traffic on the bridge at any one time. If they're not going to renew the bridge, and it can't be strengthened to take the previous weight of traffic, this seems like a sensible option. However, full closure to traffic is not an option as far I'm concerned, and it would be interesting to hear the views of the emergency services on such a proposal.


As for being stuck with the car in the future, we are undoubtedly stuck with independent personal transport of some means or another, whether is will be cars in the future is anyone's guess.

Funnily enough, I think the councillors (for south camberwell) that are participating in the campaign for closure actually live on the Grove.


The Bridge is fixed but can only take a reduced volume of cars which is why there needs to some form of traffic control (lights or otherwise). You'd thing the CG residents would be happy with that given that it should lead to less cars on the road.

"Funnily enough, I think the councillors (for south camberwell) that are participating in the campaign for closure actually live on the Grove."


I hope they declare their personal interest in this issue.


"You'd thing the CG residents would be happy with that given that it should lead to less cars on the road."


No, they won't be happy unless they get their way. They'll probably be wanting CG to become gated next, to keep out any riff raff. If closure goes ahead it will almost certainly be a class issue, as it hasn't happened anywhere else in the area (other than at Kings), but then other roads don't house the local MP and similar people.

For me - a passing traveller on the way home - it has become another reason why it takes me an extra 10-15 minutes to get home on what should be a 20 minute drive (tops). It's as unenvironmentlaly friendly as the rest of these measures which bottleneck traffic on linear roads.


And no I'm not anti - green just realistic.

The Lib Dem Councillors who lived in a nice road near my old estate got it closed off with the result that all the traffic went through our council estate. In the fight to get it re-opened one admitted to living in the area benefitted and I forced them to admit the personal interest of one that had moved since the closure, but who lived there at the time. She still had a daughter living there.


The people in the nice houses and new gated developments attended the meeting in force, and despite the danger to our kids on our estate campaigned hard to keep their peace and quiet.


They make me sick.

In Johannesburg there are a lot of gated communities with 24hr security for the wealthy. Kind of Golden Jails. Then the slightly less well of whites in some areas have decided to erect booms across the road to divert traffic and improve security. Totally illegal of course and certainly Jo'burg (not alone) is a series of segregated ghetto's.


Maurice are you suggesting this is the future?


If you erect a high fence then you must have something to hide and that makes me curious so I might decide to come over the top. Then you might install razor wire and an electric fence and I'll go and get a AK47.


Think again. Surely society needs to be more inclusive and less exclusive if we're to solve some of the issues that make you feel unsafe and insecure?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • That a shocking story.  Spurs?  You appear to be lost.  Haringey is very much the other side of the river.  
    • Every year they ask for more and every year it is an exhausting process pushing back on that for local residents and councillors. What annoys me is that at the post event consultation/ feedback this year, I specifically asked them if the rumours around applying for two weekends next year were true. They told me no. So that was a lie. Anyway, we go again. 
    • Double In New or great condition  Or super comfortable air bed Any1 pls
    • Rant ahead: You're not one of them but unfortunately, there's a substrate of posters here that do very little except moan and come up with weird conspiracy theories. They're immediately highly critical of just about any change, and their initial assumption is that everyone else is a total fucking contemptible idiot. For example: don't you think that the people who run the libraries will have considered the impact of timing of reconstruction on library users? (In fact, we know they have - because they've made arrangements at other libraries to attempt to mitigate the disruption). After all, these are the people that spend their whole working week thinking about libraries and dealing with library users (and the kids especially). You don't go into the library game for the chicks and fame - so it's fair to assume that librarians are committed to public service and public access to libraries, including by kids. Likewise the built environment people (engineers, architects, construction managers, project managers, construction contractors, subcontractors or whoever is on this job) are told to minimise disruption on every job they do. The thing that occurs to us as amateurs within 30 seconds of us seeing something is probably not something a full time professional hasn't thought about! Southwark Council, the NHS, TfL, Dulwich Estate, Thames Water, Openreach - they're not SPECTRE factories filled with malevolent chaosmongers trying to persecute anyone. They're mostly filled with people who understand their job and try to do their best with what they've been given - just like all of us. Nobody is perfect or immune from challenge, and that's fair enough, but why not at least start from the assumption that there's a good reason why things have been done the way they have? Any normal person would be pleased that their busy, pretty, lively local library is getting refurbished, and will have more space and facilities for kids and teens, and will be more efficient to run and warmer in winter. But no, EDT_Forumite_752 had kids who did an exam 20 years ago, and this makes them an expert on library refurbishment who can see it's all just stuff and nonsense for the green agenda and why can't it all be put off... 😡😡😡
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...