Jump to content

Recommended Posts

You couldn't make it up.


As if they haven't done enough damage to our local transport system ffs.



https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/24-7-bus-lanes-for-major-southwark-roads-including-tower-bridge-road-and-borough-high-street/


Starts on Sunday. Don't get caught out!

Yup, pure cash grab... Pot to grab is only going to shrink more though. TFL bust and relying on central government bailouts for the foreseeable future I think?


KidKruger Wrote:

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

> "won't someone think of the revenues ?"

Yes, another example of Southwark introducing disproportionate measures, without due forethought. Ok keep buses moving when its busy, but why 24 hours?


But then there will be that additional income from all those extra fines. Now I understand!

Only blue badge parking will be retained so it sounds like there will be double red lines on the west side of Lordship Lane all the way from William Rose up to East Dulwich Grove.


That means dozens more car parking spaces will be lost next week on top of the new CPZ.

It really does appear that Southwark is being run by children with no idea how people have to earn a living. Are there enough local residents to keep the shops alive?


Because once bitten twice shy people will not bother to come.

"As we recover from coronavirus, we?re starting to see more private vehicles using parts of the road network than before? - that's because you can't pop up to Herne Hill (for example) and be sure of actually getting on the 37 after waiting for 20 minutes; or get a bus to Peckham Rye Station.


The 30 min parking on Lordship Lane is a Godsend when heading home after a trip out and you need to pick up some quick groceries or a curry; or to buy a bootful of meat from William Rose. It's like the idiots at Southwark Council think "How can we upset East Dulwich residents today?"

Trunk roads and their bus lanes are entirely TFL's domain, nothing to do with southwark. If you don't like then don't vote for the mayor.


But this is fantastic news!


More reliable bus journeys and easier cycling. More rabid motorist comments on EDF. More planters etc. What's not to like?

alice Wrote:

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

> So where?s the bus lane on EDG?


EDG is so narrow in places that two sizeable vehicles cannot pass each other without one stopping to let the other go by. I can only assume that this is why, until about 15 years ago, the bus route went down Melbourne Grove and not EDG. No room for a bus lane therefore. It is against this backdrop that Southwark decided it was VERY sensible to displace huge volumes of traffic onto this road.


I wonder whether they could squeeze in a bus lane down Court Lane however?!?!

Looks like this was a London assembly transport committee decision after consukting with the borough but it really isnt easy to find documents on their website.


Parking restrictions may only actually be 7am to 7pm.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

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

> I love the idea that there's a shadowy cabal of

> Court Lane residents that is secretly controlling

> local and London government.


Funny you should say that because years ago in the early 1990s, before they installed speed humps and the P4 was going up and down Court Lane between Lewisham and Brixton, the residents complained that ne'er-do-wells from Brixton and Lewisham were 'casing' the properties on Court Lane- (I heard that from a Southwark Councillor who lived in Court Lane!)

That sounds like a completely reliable and highly relevant anecdote.


When did the P4 run up Court Lane? I lived very close by in 89-92 and only remember it going up College Rd (as a "hail and ride" service). It's totally possible that I am misremembering.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

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

> That sounds like a completely reliable and highly

> relevant anecdote.

>

> When did the P4 run up Court Lane? I lived very

> close by in 89-92 and only remember it going up

> College Rd (as a "hail and ride" service). It's

> totally possible that I am misremembering.


When the speed humps were installed which was about 1988 or so because I remember taking my kids to school and one of them was petrified of dogs...he was about 10 at the time . A dog ran out of a front gate in Court Lane and he ran into the road in fear and I remember thinking if the speed humps hadn't been there he would have been killed. The speed humps were installed soon after a couple of schoolboys were hit by a car travelling at speed down Court Lane and overshot the bend near to the Village end, mounted the pavement and hit them both. One of them was taken to hospital but the other one was thrown into a bush in a front garden and was found later if I recall.

I lived in Eynella and often got the P4 to shop in Lewisham as the 185 takes forever

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

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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