first mate

Richard Tudour, Until I scanned S'wark Labour's recent 2015 cycling strategy doc, I would have treated your view with some caution, but now find you are correct. The Council is deliberately planning to make car ownership as difficult as it possibly can and in 5 years wants us all to walk or cycle. The key phrases, and I quote, are they will either "calm" or "design out" cars/traffic on residential streets as well as remove parking on any main roads ( extensive double yellow lines then). Of course, they wnat to ensure that these changes cannot be undone so this explains the unseemly haste with which a host of yellow lines, proposed road blocks, changes to routes, rearranging kerbs, 20 mph, etc, etc are suddenly appearing. The greatest scandal of all is that they say we have been extensively consulted on this and agreed to it. If that were so, we would not have the plethora of threads on the subject as residents slowly wake and smell the coffee.

Jeremy, exactly, where is the evidence that developers sit down and think how can we build decent, affordable property for lower waged, first time buyers. The evidence vis a vis markets is on this page, the developer on the site under discussion here could have built 8 flats but dumped that option, chossing instead to build two penthouses...not likely affordable for your average nurse, young teacher et..

Tigres Prides, Yes S'wark Labour, seemingly supported by the Lib Dems, have a five year plan to: "calm" or "design out" cars on residential roads and to remove parking on main roads. This is just the beginning of a series of "exciting" initiatives to get us all out of our cars and walking or cycling everywhere. For anyone who wants to read it it is all there in the latest cycling strategy document which also claims that a fullscale public consultation has taken place ensbling the above to go ahead. Allegedly, we support this. So, our roads and traffic infrastructure are, at great expense, being deliberately torn apart so that we can be managed out of our cars and forced into transport habits deemed most appropriate for us by this Council and its supporters. Meanwhile, on another thread one poster reports that the new and unnecessary, though expensive, works on Nx caused her to trip. Calls for improvement to paving on many streets in the area have been dismissed...not enough money. Councillors are also way too busy rearranging our lives, our roads and waging war on all car owners.

I think he is a senior engineer involved in the various audits and whose reports have identified the same problems with all the meddling that was flagged up ages ago by resudents/objectors to the scheme.

Having skimmed the Southwark document two things really leapt out, the clear aim to calm or 'design out' traffic on residential streets as well as remove parking on busier roads. The second was that allegedly extensive public consultation has been carried out. This is the first I've heard about these much more ambitious plans. According to the document we are just at the beginning of these 'exciting' changes and this is a 5 year plan. I am beginning to think they really intend to make car ownership impossible.

I hope that the shop owners get some sort of compensation for loss of business? It is crazy and I cannot understand how the Council have allowed this to proceed... everything is at the convenience of the developers and hang everyone else.

Are those double yellows new?

Dear Councillor Smith, No doubt 20 mph has been brought in with the best intentions but the reality does not square with them. Please, if you have not already, do drive at various times when traffic is at its worst and try the various hills for yourself? I understand that you hope it'll all turn out for the best but the road to getting there is proving dangerous and stressful all round, and you don't know how long the process of adaptation will take, if ever..I, like many, do not feel it is worth it. No problem with 20 mph on residential roads but not necessary on main artery roads and, it would seem, the police agree?

Great to hear from you Councillor Smith and I for one hope you are a regular visitor from now on. Aside from comments about the woeful progress of works on Northcross Road, could you also kindly take a look at threads on 20mph as well as mass objections to closure of various roads and extending double yellow lines? I think you'll find that very few ordinary posters on here are politically motivated they just want Councillors to listen to valid objections and try to intervene/ represent local interests rather than appear to be intent on driving through manifesto pledges come what may.

Hi Bobbsy, We agree. 20 mph on residential streets is entirely sensible and I fully support that but on main roads, without adequate enforcement all round, it seems to be creating problems, not solving them. However, it seems that political vanity (manifesto pledges) will always trump commonsense.

bobbsy, I believe you, since very few are adhering to the limit. However, weaving in and out happens a lot and it is hard to maintain the limit, monitor other drivers who don't wnat to, as well as monitor blind spots while also negotiating parked cars/stationary/indicating buses, and when the odd cyclist suddenly whizzes either side of you to get in front, right in the blind spot.

On the flat is one thing but it is up and down the quite steep hills in the area that are most problematic. To maintain 20 it means applying brakes most of the way down with other irate drivers pushing to get by, and many cyclists, quite understandably, freewheel down at a much faster speed, often weaving as they go. I think 20 has to apply to all road users to be safe.

James, thanks for raising this and letting people here know. Why do you think this is now on the agenda, what is the rationale?

James, might have known that sooner or later you'd get CPZ back on the agenda.

Chazzle, obviously a different kind of development, but with The old Iceland site there were robust objections which were accepted by planning and carried for a number if applications, then on further appeal those same objections were suddenly overturned and rejected by planning. Do stay positive but try to make your objections as watertight as possible within planning law/policy for the area. I have seen a number of cases where there has been clear breach of policy but planning has folded under repeated applications from the developer, and the same reason given each time, that planning fear if it goes to appeal and they lose that costs will be awarded to the developer....bad PR, setting precedents etc. However big developers know this as do Councillors, so what we end up with is an elaborate and protracted "planning dance" but with outcomes that may not concur with the local policy.

Renata, Will we be told when these cameras are operational and will there be clear warnings on the roads that 20 mph is being enforced? It is currently difficult to maintain 20 mph solidly as drivers are intimidated into going faster by other drivers; cyclists weaving in and out at speed, especially down hills, are another problem, all of which make attempts to stick to 20 mph more hazardous. What level of error/ leeway will these new cameras give, if any? If any councillors have not yet tried the drive up and down Dog Kennel and Sydenham Hills and maintaining 20 mph all the way I would urge them to do so.

Spider69, News to me. Could James Barber confirm that TFL own cameras and that they are all set to 30? Does sWark own any cameras and if so what are tbey set to? If all cameras are 30 moh no wonder all the buses do not adhere to 20. Is the reality that 20 is just something the council would like but cannot enforce?

Huggers, Afraid so. First offence is ?100 and 3 points. I have got a suspicion that S'wark, whilst stating 20 mph is self enforcing, may sneak in the odd camera with a view to maximising revenue opportunities. Obviously, if they said it was going to be enforced everyone would be a lot more careful, but I suspect by deliberately creating confusion they hope to fine more people. I wonder if it would be possible to get info on what cameras are operating and where? It seems unfair to me to state it is self enforcing if they plan to then enforce but without telling people. I have said before if safety really is the motive then tell us where it is being enforced. At least in those areas everyone will drive more carefully.

rahrahrah, Because they want the money and they want it now? Again, smacks of political expediency and short-termism.

Lobbing that one in is a nice distraction ( a separate thread perhaps, or tip off the press) but this is about how those works came to be and then managed. We need to focus on that. I look forward to seeing details of Worldwiser's FOI. In my humble opnion a week's worth of work was strung out to over two months, this has to be followed up by James. He is our Councillor and must hold to account those responsible for the fiasco. I for one think mentioning parties is an obvious play and cheap (though I am sure it won't be!).

EP, spot on.

Oh well, that's that then. I guess we just have to vote in your lot in next time to get something done with the pavements. James, are you being serious, with respect that sounds defeatist on your part. If half the energy was put into basic stuff like this, as to road barriers and so forth, I feel sure pavements could be improved. I keep hearing arguments about how 20 moh and more cycling will improve the lot of the elderly and vulnerable by making our streets safer, not much point if they can trip on paving and break a hip the moment they step out of the front door.

Abe, come on, not helpful. It defintely feels more dangerous, especially at night. We need solutions that work and removing the politics would help.

It is also the case that family responsibilities may require multiple journeys to areas outside of London that become impossible without a car, in that such journeys can be last minute and unpredictable and where the costs of using a combination of trains, buses and taxis, as may be the case, is too expensive to be feasible. Use of club cars requires a degree of planning, so not useful in such cases.

James, why is so much being spent on the area around Nx? Is it anything to do with imminent arrival of M&S? The endless and infamous Nx junction path works are now complete and I feel distinctly undewhelmed...really what was all that upheaval for? Have you had a look at the paths along Ashbourne, Chesterfield, Blackwater, Melbourne, lately? .Appaling, as they are in other side streets. How about a bit of money spent on these? We are all sick of the vast puddles that accumlate at the slightest bit of rain. An elderly lady was complaining to me about dangerous some of the paths are too and so easy to lose footing or trip on uneven paving. A nightmare if you are disabled.