Jump to content

Recommended Posts

To say I?m disappointed, as a resident of the section of EDG that will be directly impacted is an understatement. This is nimbyism in the extreme. I walk down Melbourne North, Elsie and Derwent regularly and far from being overrun by rat runners, they are in fact very very quiet. Indeed, it?s lucky if a single vehicle drives past in the time it takes me to walk down each road. What these proposals will do however is to force the many many car owners living on these roads past my front door whenever they leave their houses; as well as their tradesmen; delivery vans etc. The junction of Lordship Lane and EDG as well as the Goose Green roundabout are already saturated, yet Southwark think it is acceptable to add to the number of vehicles needing to use these on a daily basis.


It will come as no surprise that (based on my review of 2011 census data) the section of EDG set to suffer far worse traffic as a direct consequence of this, does not have a resident?s association; we have far lower owner occupiers than any of the streets standing to benefit; significantly more social housing; a significantly greater BAME population; and far lower levels of car ownership. It is hard to believe that a labour council thinks this is appropriate, particularly as a ?green? initiative in the middle of a global pandemic where individuals from a BAME background are already at far greater risk of contracting coronavirus and dying from it.


As with the sister schemes already implemented on Melbourne South and in Dulwich Village, all these schemes do is to divide the community; displace traffic and significantly increase air pollution elsewhere by increasing the volume of traffic on roads that cannot cope with it, thereby significantly increasing the amount of idling traffic.


Except for the very very few school children who live on Tintagel Crescent or Melbourne North, practically every child going to school in the area will need to intersect with an A road at some stage. Making these roads more polluted and congested than ever before cannot be in anyone?s interests.

The traffic along East Dulwich Grove & Goose Green roundabouts will become a nightmare. The junction of Lordship Lane & East Dulwich Grove is already dangerous for pedestrians and will only become worse as it gets busier. Maybe with plans to also later close Townley Road the planners think more traffic will stay on Lordship lane?




Serena2012 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> To say I?m disappointed, as a resident of the

> section of EDG that will be directly impacted is

> an understatement. This is nimbyism in the

> extreme. I walk down Melbourne North, Elsie and

> Derwent regularly and far from being overrun by

> rat runners, they are in fact very very quiet.

> Indeed, it?s lucky if a single vehicle drives past

> in the time it takes me to walk down each road.

> What these proposals will do however is to force

> the many many car owners living on these roads

> past my front door whenever they leave their

> houses. The junction of Lordship Lane and EDG as

> well as the Goose Green roundabout are already

> saturated, yet Southwark think it is acceptable to

> add to the number of vehicles needing to use these

> on a daily basis.

>

> It will come as no surprise that (based on my

> review of 2011 census data) the section of EDG set

> to suffer far worse traffic as a direct

> consequence of this, does not have a resident?s

> association; we have far lower owner occupiers

> than any of the streets standing to benefit;

> significantly more social housing; a significantly

> greater BAME population; and far lower levels of

> car ownership. It is hard to believe that a labour

> council thinks this is appropriate, particularly

> as a ?green? initiative in the middle of a global

> pandemic where individuals from a BAME background

> are already at far greater risk of contracting

> coronavirus and dying from it.

>

> As with the sister schemes already implemented on

> Melbourne South and in Dulwich Village, all these

> schemes do is to divide the community; displace

> traffic and significantly increase air pollution

> elsewhere by increasing the volume of traffic on

> roads that cannot cope with it, thereby

> significantly increasing the amount of idling

> traffic.

>

> Except for the very very few school children who

> live on Tintagel Crescent or Melbourne North,

> practically every child going to school in the

> area will need to intersect with an A road at some

> stage. Making these roads more polluted and

> congested than ever before cannot be in anyone?s

> interests.

Perhaps Cllr McAsh might revisit the forum and grace us with his thoughts as it is clear that since the barriers went up traffic and pollution has increased significantly across his ward. One presumes that he is concerned about the increases in traffic caused by these closures.

Roywj- Agreed the junction of Lordship Lane and EDG is a fatal accident waiting to happen. It?s awful, and from

previous threads, it sounds very unlikely that traffic lights would work without descending the Goose Green roundabout into near constant gridlock, and as all these roads are bus routes, TFL is very very unlikely to allow this to be pushed through.


The sheer volume of traffic turning right from EDG onto Townley every time I?ve walked past in recent weeks suggests to me that it?s unlikely the load on EDG will lessen once Townley is shut. I have heard that Townley might end up as a school street rather than a permanent permeable closure, which is something.


Lordship Lane is busier than I?ve ever seen it at present; with huge tailbacks all along it, so it?s hardly in a position to absorb more traffic either. The reality is that rushing in these changes so hastily, and without adequate modelling is a recipe for disaster.

Who is the person to contact?


Simply put these barriers won't change a thing and businesses will get less passing trade.


An alternative suggestion is perhaps one way traffic? Surely if something has to change this would offer a safer environment for all and ot disrupt traffic.


Though my experience of Southwark is that they do consultations then right away ignore them / actively bias surveys via leading questions. Prime example..

I have reviewed the ED CPZ consultation report. 69% residents were against and 91% businesses were against. Yet this is the quote I received from the project PM:


This decision was made by the cabinet member and ward councillors and is widely supported by residents.


As members of this forum have mentioned, all this would do is force longer journey's along already contested roads. More stationary vehicles and higher pollution.


Quite frankly in this current situation with public transport being recommended against it is bizarre. Moreover we bicker about the necessity of a car, yes a weekly shop, diy or going to the tip without a car is possible but very difficult.I have lived in London without one for over 10 years but the current situation pushed me to get one. It has ultimately improved my quality of life.

Thorncombe - I couldn?t agree more. In terms of who to contact, try the following:


Richard Livingstone: [email protected] (Southwark cabinet member for transport)

Dale Foden: [email protected] (Head of Highways)

The Goose Green ward councillors, including James McAsh: [email protected]

Helen Hayes MP: mailto:[email protected]





Thorncombe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Who is the person to contact?

>

> Simply put these barriers won't change a thing and

> businesses will get less passing trade.

>

> An alternative suggestion is perhaps one way

> traffic? Surely if something has to change this

> would offer a safer environment for all and ot

> disrupt traffic.

>

> Though my experience of Southwark is that they do

> consultations then right away ignore them /

> actively bias surveys via leading questions. Prime

> example..

> I have reviewed the ED CPZ consultation report.

> 69% residents were against and 91% businesses were

> against. Yet this is the quote I received from the

> project PM:

>

> This decision was made by the cabinet member and

> ward councillors and is widely supported by

> residents.

>

> As members of this forum have mentioned, all this

> would do is force longer journey's along already

> contested roads. More stationary vehicles and

> higher pollution.

>

> Quite frankly in this current situation with

> public transport being recommended against it is

> bizarre. Moreover we bicker about the necessity of

> a car, yes a weekly shop, diy or going to the tip

> without a car is possible but very difficult.I

> have lived in London without one for over 10 years

> but the current situation pushed me to get one. It

> has ultimately improved my quality of life.

This is how UK democracy works in every way on every level.



Thorncombe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Though my experience of Southwark is that they do

> consultations then right away ignore them /

> actively bias surveys via leading questions. Prime

> example..

> I have reviewed the ED CPZ consultation report.

> 69% residents were against and 91% businesses were

> against. Yet this is the quote I received from the

> project PM:

thebestnameshavegone Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Bingo


Damn, you're so edgy and original.


> I have reviewed the ED CPZ consultation report.

> 69% residents were against and 91% businesses were

> against. Yet this is the quote I received from the

> project PM

>

> This decision was made by the cabinet member and

> ward councillors and is widely supported by

> residents.


And they wonder why the turnout for council elections hovers around the 30% mark in most wards.

11 posts, all about road closures.

How much do they pay you lot?

I'd ask for a pay rise

-------------------------------------------------------

> thebestnameshavegone Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Bingo

>

> Damn, you're so edgy and original.

>

> > I have reviewed the ED CPZ consultation report.

>

> > 69% residents were against and 91% businesses

> were

> > against. Yet this is the quote I received from

> the

> > project PM

> >

> > This decision was made by the cabinet member and

>

> > ward councillors and is widely supported by

> > residents.

>

> And they wonder why the turnout for council

> elections hovers around the 30% mark in most

> wards.

thebestnameshavegone Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 11 posts, all about road closures.

> How much do they pay you lot?

> I'd ask for a pay rise



Just shows the strength of people's feelings about the whole lack of consultation process by the council and even when they do consult the results are manipulated in favour of the councils goals (the CPZ results for example)

march46 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> People walking and cycling spend more time and

> money in local shops


It isn't as straightforward as that, sadly. The research published by the TFL team !NB: set up to promote cycling! that has led to this broadly held misinterpretation of the data actually says that pedestrians and cyclists spend less per visit. They spend more over the course of a month, but that's because they visit more frequently.


So for example ...

Anne lives local, walks to Ye Olde Hi Street Shoppe 4 times per month and spend ?2 per visit = ?8/month

vs.

Sue who drives once per month but spends ?6.


If you know of other data, I would be keen to see it.

Abe_froeman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> cyclists and pedestrians spend

> more money


AFAIK that's not true but a misinterpretation of a TFL study - from the team set up to encourage cycling - which fails to account for weight (frequency) of visit * spend.

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

    • What was he doing on the stage at Glastonbury? Or on the stage at the other concert in Finsbury Park? Grinning like a Cheshire cat whilst pissed and stoned 20 somethings on the promise of free internet sung-- Oh Jeremy Corbyn---  What were his policies for Northern mining towns with no jobs or infrastructure? Free Internet and university places for youngsters. What were his other manifesto pledges? Why all the ambiguity over Brexit?  I didn't like Thatcher, Blair or May or Tony but I respected them as politicians because they stood by what they believed in. I respect all politicians across the board that stick to their principles. Corbyn didn't and its why he got  annihilated at the polls. A socialist, anti imperialist and anti capitalist that said he voted for an imperialist and pro capitalist cabal. He refused to say how he'd vote over and over again until the last knockings. He did so to appease the Islington elite and middle class students he was courting. The same people that were screaming that Brexit was racist. At the same time the EU were holding black and Asian immigrants in refugee camps overseas but not a word on that! Corbyn created and courted a student union protest movement that screamed at and shouted down anyone not on the left . They claimed Starmer and the centre right of labour were tories. He didn't get elected  because he, his movement and policies were unelectable, twice. He turned out not to have the convictions of his politics and died on his own sword.   
    • The purge of hard left members that were part of Corbyn's, Mcdonnel's and Lansmans momentum that purged the party of right wing and centrist members. That's politics. It's what Blair did to win, its what Starmer had to do to win. This country doesn't vote in extreme left or right governments. That's partly why Corbyn lost  We're pretty much a centrist bunch.  It doesn't make it false either. It's an opinion based on the voting patterns, demography and statistics. Can you explain then why former mining constituencies that despise the tories voted for them or abstained rather than vote for Corbyns Labour?  What is the truth then? But he never got elected!!! Why? He should have been binned off there and then. Why he was allowed to hang about is an outrage. I hold him party responsible for the shit show that we've had to endure since. 
    • Depends on what the Barista says doesnt it? There was no physical confrontation with the driver, OP thinks she is being targetted when she isnt. These guys work min wage under strict schedules so give them a break unless they damage your stuff
    • CPR Dave, attendance records are available on Southwark's website. Maggie Browning has attended 100% of meetings. Jon Hartley has attended 65%.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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