Conspiracy, c*ck-up or hidden agendas?

[Penguin68]

There are a number of threads current or recently so which have commented on the various road works, changes in regulation etc., proposed changes in lay-out in and around East Dulwich (excluding those by e.g. Thames Water, annoying but presumably necessary) all of which have had, or are having, the effect of making the lives of motorists more complex and difficult, often not (even) to the benefit of other road users (such as cyclists). I think of endless road-works rarely completed to time, or design, the dropped kerbs ? yellow lines debacle, the extension of yellow lines in residential streets and so on.

Mr Barber (inter alia) has been the first to challenge any suggestion that there is any pattern, or intention, in these, even when he is frequently the progenitor or cheer-leader for them, or at the least seems to take an age to address them effectively (dropped kerbs) even when he is diligent in many other aspects. He is, of course (and entirely reasonably) an overt champion of the cycling fraternity. He has also championed (whilst often appearing not to) moves to institute CPZs in the area ? and most recently moves to physically block a residential link road between two A roads in the area.

Even the unbiased ED-er (I am not) might see some sort of pattern emerging which is clearly anti-car and which is about either/ and driving cars (and car ownership) out of ED and/ or moving to create a climate where local charging of car ownership will be welcomed, or at least let slip through. That this is being achieved by piecemeal disruptions and changes may either be fortuitous (the left hand not knowing what the even lefter hand is doing) or might be all of a pattern to achieve an end.

Rather than letting debate emerge on various different threads, as things happen, I thought I might offer a consolidated thread where concerns, or otherwise, might be discussed.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Just because you're paranoid, don't mean they're not after you ;-)

[Otta]

Anything that encourages less car use is a good thing.

[Alan Medic]

Like people stealing tyres like I read elsewhere?

[Townleygreen]

This city is suffering hugely from air pollution, much of which is caused by motor vehicles.

London is also growing in population through in migration.

The likely result is that if we keep the present levels of car ownership through the coming decades, 1. the roads will be unable to cope and 2. the levels of pollution will be impossible to cope with and death rates will rise.

The obvious solution is for more people to walk or cycle, neither of which causes pollution, plus use of public transport.

The Dutch have achieved this since they went down the same track from the mid-70s and look how pleasant their cities are now.

I have a car but find I use it less and less, finding it more convenient to walk, cycle or catch the bus or train.

Surely this is sensible?

[Jeremy]

I would agree, but I advocate the carrot instead of the stick. i.e. proper cycle infrastructure, increasing public transport frequency/capacity (and no, bloody buses don't count).

[Townleygreen]

Fair points, Jeremy.

[DaveR]

Not a very hidden agenda:

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200107/transport_policy

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200107/transport_policy/3623/our_cycling_strategy_cycling_for_everyone

Southwark's transport policy is explicitly pro-bike and walking, and anti car. Most of what is being done re roads reflects that policy, at least in part. No conspiracy.

Where planned works aren't completed on time, I think we can be fairly sure it's cock-up, or to be more accurate incompetence.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Totally agree with Jeremy. All for getting people out of their cars, but you have to have decent alternatives available. Get the tube, Boris bikes an some decent segregated bike lanes and then, by all means, start making it more difficult for people to use their cars.

[rodneybewes]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> I would agree, but I advocate the carrot instead

> of the stick. i.e. proper cycle infrastructure,

> increasing public transport frequency/capacity

> (and no, bloody buses don't count).

That's the problem with the current policy, the alternatives are awful. I think you need both. The congestion charge is an example of the stick, and it works well. I remember what central London was like before that.

I genuinely think that improving public transport in London in the short and medium term sticks on one big problem - cash. The cost to improve the infrastructure now is so enormous that no-one can contemplate it. We can already see how the price of travel is outstripping inflation whilst delivering a worse service.

I am surprised at the shock that policy is aimed at penalising vehicle transport in London. Surely we need to be discouraging vehicle use as much as possible. Making it smoother just increases the amount of traffic on the road. It's a zero sum game.

[Jeremy]

Fair point about the congestion charge "stick". Although making driving a pain in the ass for the sake of it just seems absurd to me.

Clearly there is money to improve the transport infrastucture, the crossrail project is a huge undertaking and they're already talking about a North/South Crossrail 2. This is exactly the kind of thing that will make getting around London easier for everyone.

[Abe_froeman]

The policy seems especially surprising when funds are appropriated from the greener cleaner safer project whilst there are parts of Southwark that are dirty, polluted and unsafe.

I would think residents in some parts of Southwark where there is near squalor must be appalled that the council can find money to reduce car use in streets of privately owned houses costing a million pounds or more.

[rodneybewes]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> Fair point about the congestion charge "stick".

> Although making driving a pain in the ass for the

> sake of it just seems absurd to me.

>

> Clearly there is money to improve the transport

> infrastucture, the crossrail project is a huge

> undertaking and they're already talking about a

> North/South Crossrail 2. This is exactly the kind

> of thing that will make getting around London

> easier for everyone.

I don't think it's for the sake of it. It's to cut the number of vehicles down which has to be a laudable aim. I don't really see another way. Do you see one? I'd be interested in alternative views on that.

Cross-rail is exorbitantly expensive. Through the roof expensive. And it's only designed to help increase capacity in line with the projected increase of numbers of people crossing London. You would have to multiply that a lot of times to start eating into the poor transport infrastructure in London generally. We'll be paying for things like Crossrail and the high speed link to Birmingham and the North for decades. They won't be doing many of those, that's for sure.

[rodneybewes]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> The policy seems especially surprising when funds

> are appropriated from the greener cleaner safer

> project whilst there are parts of Southwark that

> are dirty, polluted and unsafe.

>

> I would think residents in some parts of Southwark

> where there is near squalor must be appalled that

> the council can find money to reduce car use in

> streets of privately owned houses costing a

> million pounds or more.

Is a pro-walking, running and cycling policy really that surprising?

Your second point makes more sense but I don't see it as being linked to the first one. I presume you are talking about the Melbourne Grove debate but that's very much a local issue. By the way, I don't necessarily see the benefit in closing off Melbourne Grove.

[Jeremy]

Problem is that I don't believe many people drive in London for fun. Deliveries, tradesmen, taxis. People with stuff to transport or working unsociable hours. A boot full of shopping and two kids in the back. Lack of feasible transport links to certain destinations. These people will still drive even if you turn the roads into an obstacle course.

[Townleygreen]

Look at the cars in the rush hour! So many have just one person in them.

[Otta]

Some people need a car. Most people however only claim that they "need" their car, whereas actually it's more accurate to say they like their car.

[Jeremy]

I can think of a few jobs where driving might be the norm. Teacher is one that springs to mind, where public transport might not be a feasible option from A to B, and you have 60 sets of homework to take with you.

[Jeremy]

Otta Wrote:

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

> Some people need a car. Most people however only

> claim that they "need" their car, whereas actually

> it's more accurate to say they like their car.

Well the main reason for most of us is simply that it's convenient and a great time saver. Doesn't make you a petrol-head. I only use mine at weekends, but for journeys out of London, and also things like runs to Sainsburys/B&Q/Ikea/etc, it's a very useful thing to have indeed. But prefer public transport for travelling into town, or walking locally.

[Otta]

Don't get me wrong, I'd love a car for camping trips and trips to big shops lime IKEA. Just winds me up when people try to convince me (as someone did on here once) that they absolutely NEEDED their car.

[Jeremy]

Yeah I think only a fairly small number of people in London can really claim that.

[JohnL]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> Otta Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Some people need a car. Most people however

> only

> > claim that they "need" their car, whereas

> actually

> > it's more accurate to say they like their car.

>

> Well the main reason for most of us is simply that

> it's convenient and a great time saver. Doesn't

> make you a petrol-head. I only use mine at

> weekends, but for journeys out of London, and also

> things like runs to Sainsburys/B&Q/Ikea/etc, it's

> a very useful thing to have indeed. But prefer

> public transport for travelling into town, or

> walking locally.

Think I'm the same.

But my little Toyota is really cheap to run and only ?20 car tax.