first mate

I really don't think the aim is to reduce speed. The real issue is reducing parking and then cars, this is a more oblique way of doing it. Our local Councillor campaigned long and hard for CPZ so I cannot see that he would object to or stand in the way of anything that achieves a similar result. After all, if parking is sufficiently reduced there will be some that clamour for CPZ. Parking is being reduced by one method or another all over ED and Dulwich, this suits the purposes of the Southwark administration and, I fear, our own Councillor, though I very much hope he comes on here to say I am wrong.

Yes, it looks sneaky. Lots of TMOS with lots of new yellow lines reducing lots of parking spaces, all misleadingly lumped under the title of "consolidation", while we've all been been kept busy focussing on the barrier issue. Well done Woodwarde for spotting this one and rch please do reveal the full extent of the "agenda" when you have had a chance to look. Can I also ask James to comment on the above?

rch, Do the changes you mention about waiting and yellow lines on Melbourne appear in the new Waiting and Loading restrictions Consolidation Order- see below Public notice Consolidation of waiting and loading restrictions The London Borough of Southwark (Waiting and loading restrictions) Consolidation Order 30th July 2015 As you will have seen on the Townley thread some of us are wondering if the above is just consolidation of what already exists or a means to sneak in new restrictions? Sorry if I am taking things of thread, do not mean to just want to understand the above. Further reducing parking on Melbourne and surrounding streets seems madness of the highest order and CPZ by stealth, but I am not surprised at the divide and rule tactics that seem to be going on.

James (Barber) Can you allay our fears?

Again, could one of our local Councillors shed some light on this and whether there are new restrictions or anything new at all, or is it only consolidation of what already exists and has been formally passed?

I will have to check more closely but to me it looked as though new restrictions were being introduced on the road I checked out. Could James Barber explain these TMOs and what impact, if any, they will have?

So could our councillors kindly explain when, how and why this lot was decided? It seems to affect many streets and limits parking even further. Am I mistaken in this?

To get back on thread, what does James propose to do about, as former councillor and colleague RCH calls it " the madness of the barrier" on Melbourne Grove?

If issues like traffic are only dealt with on a ward by ward basis it is easy to see how bad decisions will arise. An overview and sense of the big picture is vital. I cannot see that James should feel limited in any way (limits of human energy aside) in getting "stuck in" on our behalf. Go James go.

RCH, Yes, you have a point in theory but common sense dictates that major changes on traffic flow impacts all the areas not just the individual ward and so eAch ward expects their local councillor to represent them as vigorously as possible. There is a sense that, for whatever reason, this is not happening. But yes, ward boundaries are a useful excuse, when expedient.

ZT hear hear.

People tend to adhere to rules they know will be enforced and ignore those that are not...not condoning this in this case, but it is human nature. 20mph was imposed on the basis drivers would self regulate. As one might expect, some drivers self regulate the majority seem not to bother. If speed cameras are to now be used then there needs to be some warning that self regulation is to be replaced with enforcement by speed camera; I think that is fair and reasonable, especially if the stated aim is to make roads safer rather than generate income.

Again, perhaps our local councillors can tell us?

Well done Jenny, please keep us updated. Amongst the five who signed the deputation request is their a councillor name attached?

I think we should pay close attention to developments in our area and how many are manipulating the system, successfully it would seem, to avoid inclusion of social housing. The further poorly paid staff have to travel in each day, because they cannot afford to live more centrally, whether renting or owning, the worse their performance is likely to be. Public transport is also increasingly stressful. they are unlikely to cycle. Poorly paid staff include low grade care and hospital workers. Do we really want them to feel stretched and resentful, as many do? Until this directly affects you or your family, you will not figure the knock on effects of the way developers and this govt are skewing the housing market. The 'we need more housing' mantra is empty as housing is being created for the wrong sector.

Good point Spider,seems reasonable to tell locals about significant changes in their locale. This is a local imposition, 20 mph is not city wide. Could James let us know if enforcement by camera is imminent?

If there are to be new enforcement cameras I hope that Councillors give fair warning. It currently takes a tremendous effort of will and nerves of steel to stick to 20mph when many behind you are revving and trying to force you to go faster. Sometimes it feels safer to go faster simply to avoid to avoid frequent and reckless overtaking that goes on. There is also some pretty dangerous power cycling going down, cutting across cars at full throttle with no signalling, being just one example.

I think it is all the empty and manipulative rhetoric about how enhancing this development will be for the local area, providing a great backdrop to the park and adding value for all - really vomit inducing.

Jeremy, yes it is, it is there in the detail. ITATM, agree with all you say and also noticed the selective description trotted out for existing businesses. An oversized, incongruous development, happy to bulldoze existing, flourishing businesses literally off the premises.

Looks like vet does not figure.

James, what no plan at all? You see that doesn't sound reassuring.

It is really hard to know why resurfacing would take so long. Perhaps Councillor Barber can shed some light on this?

Still, once it is done pedestrians will have a 'nicer' experience, so has to be worth it. I quote JB from an earlier thread last year " The NXR/LL has a number of pedestrian movements but primarily these works are to make this junction more pleasant and a better experience."

ed-pete, Yes I know, I was actually making a wider point about all the various roadworks and mooted road changes in the area, of which Nx road is one and Townley another.I was also pointing out, in response to Foxy, that Townley, is having sewage pipes relaid as part of larger scale works, inferring that laying of similar piping at Nx does not mean sewage is the primary reason for the works...convoluted, I know. I cited the above as I thought Sue had queried changes being made to Townley, but rereading I now see she thought I was talking about changes to Nx. No matter, it is my understanding that Nx pavements onto LL are being built out- the pavement will be considerably wider and the rationale for this was to make it a 'nicer' experience for pedestrians. I also recall talk of bike racks being put there but don't know if that is still on. However, you are right, I have taken the thread off track, so will now shutup!

Hi Sue, From S'warks website, though see other threads where more recent info on changes is cited by Woodwarde What are the proposed changes? ? Removal of existing staggered pedestrian crossings with the implementation of shorter, single movement facilities. ? Introduction of a diagonal pedestrian crossing to link footways adjacent to both schools and cater for an existing pedestrian desire line. ? All pedestrian facilities to operate at the same time to reduce waiting time for pedestrians and improve the efficiency of the junction. ? Cycle pre-signal on Townley Road and Green Dale to allow cycles to enter the junction and undertake turning movements before general traffic. ? New signalised cycle gates on both Townley Road and Green Dale where cyclists are held on a red signal whilst general traffic movements operate. This removes the risk of both left hook and right hook collisions. (Please note that more confident cyclists will still be allowed to use the general traffic lane to traverse the junction from either Townley Road or Green Dale). ? Semi-segregated cycle lane and advanced cycle waiting area on East Dulwich Grove (westbound) to allow cyclists to bypass waiting vehicles and gain priority at the junction. ? Footway buildouts to reduce crossing distances for pedestrians and to visually improve the streetscape. ? New two stage right turn facilities for cyclists to assist right turning movements into either Townley Road or Green Dale from East Dulwich Grove. ? A semi-segregated cycle lane is proposed on Townley Road to allow cyclists to safely pass queuing traffic and access the cycle facilities at the junction. ? A new segregated cycle lane is proposed linking Calton Avenue with Townley Road to allow cyclists to bypass the Calton Avenue / Townley Road junction. ? All existing turning movements at the junction are retained, including for coaches. ? There will be a slight loss of capacity over the existing layout but the junction will continue to operate within acceptable levels of saturation.