first mate

I expect we may not always be on the same page but I agree and this tunnel vision, pick and mix approach will increase pressure on Lordship Lane and ED Grove...while a handful of residents reap the benefits. You cannot put the needs of one section of the community before everyone else. Of course we must protect children but it is not only about children and cyclists. We must also consider the needs of those who cannot cycle and who may not be able to walk very far. We absolutely must consider access for emergency services, especially now. The Council and its stakeholders are not thinking this through, instead they are reverting to old ideas and coveted solutions, in an almost blinkered manner, and repurposing them to fit the moment and legal obligations. I still fear that underpinning the above is an eye to CPZ and generating income in future. If emergency measures were really a genuine and thinking response to the current situation I suspect the solutions might look a bit different. The fact that they are old, pre-covid ideas just looks dodgy. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If the council want to make it easier for people > to social distance and support local shops as > things start opening up again, then the single > most pressing local challenge is along Lordship > Lane. > > Then there is the need to quickly create space > outside of schools (which they are taking some > action on, but not everywhere). > > Lastly, they should be looking to create > segregated cycle lanes into central London to > enable people to get to work, whilst avoiding > public transport or having to resort to cars. This > could most obviously be done along the 'Southwark > Spine' route (so down Crystal palace and Bellenden > Road an on northwards). They need to be radical. > All they have done so far is to bring forward a > few discrete projects they had planned already. > > Lambeth on the other hand are creating new 'low > traffic' neighbourhoods, widening pavements and > creating previously unplanned cycle routes. They > are acting with urgency. > > We need much bolder and strategic action.

Perhaps the Council can under emergency powers find a way to intervene with Landlords if they are not being reasonable in meeting the needs of cycle owning tenants. Folding cycles are also a great solution as they are easily stored inside the home.

Well the new Charter school and Medical centres, as well as Harris primary, are right next to main roads that can expect increased traffic and pollution as a result of these measures.

Any barrier should be easily removable for emergency access. This would not affect the walking or cycling aspect. However, the barriers indicated, along with the double yellow lines, look to be far more permanent, despite all the empty rhetoric around feedback to see if they make a positive difference. I am also sure this council is more than capable of dressing up a different agenda to look as though it is meeting govt imposed legal obligations, after all, who has oversight or is checking? rollflick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This scheme is about enabling far more people to > walk and cycle, in recognition that capacity on > public transport is seriously limited due to > social distancing. > > Melbourne Grove has been repeatedly designated as > a future local cycling route but the council has > failed to deliver. Trouble is the council has now > also failed to communicate this plan or explain > that it has a legal obligation to provide for > dramatically increased levels of walking and > cycling. > > Given this legal obligation, anyone writing into > the council to complain based on the comments in > this thread is wasting their time, as well as > that of officers and councillors. If you have a > better suggestion that can be delivered in a > similar length of time that could be different. > Certainly there is a case for also filtering > Crystal Palace Road too (rather than as an > alternative).

KK, yes, but it is interesting that although the Council?s ?emergency? justification for the MG barrier is to do with social distancing that all those who have come on to voice support have changed the direction of justification to align with the old, original proposal. Social distancing is not mentioned...at all!

It goes without saying that if he were disabled, it may not be so easy for him to simply ?walk? around the corner and the needs of all drivers are therefore not, as you insist, over-stated. Please, try to see the light and shade. If people can cycle they probably will, but not everyone can. Try to accept that.

I don?t think that is what EDAus wrote, or implied. But if he were or is disabled I am shocked you would, without any knowledge of his circumstances, be directing/pressuring him on his chosen mode of transport. It comes across as high-handed and insensitive.

I am also really unclear how all this enhances social distancing in the area?

I think the general understanding of a permeable filter is rather different. Aside from everything else stated, emergency service access is a real worry, has this been properly considered, given we are living through a pandemic with a likely second wave and all that?

Bels123 it is a road block, no vehicles can pass through.

Why a road block on MG and not a permeable filter?

Air pollution will not be improved if traffic is simply shunted elsewhere as well as increased on Lordship Lane. I am also really concerned about the access of emergency services, as should everyone be. We might be under the impression that everything is getting back to normal but there is a good chance we will have a much worse second wave. If there is a second lockdown then the need for any barrier is negated and access becomes the priority.

And yet there have actually been serious accidents on other roads the council has not addressed. It remains to be seen if this will be an improvement for all the streets around Melbourne. Somehow I doubt it. Though MG may have some slight improvement in air quality. Again, I do hope that those living on MG who pushed for this will relinquish any motor vehicle ownership, if they currently own one, and will not add to parking pressure, air pollution or congestion on other streets around them.

Because it is not clear what the SD benefits are so why trial it now? Why, among many other possible measures is this being prioritised? What is the view of emergency services, have they commented? I for one do not believe that a measure the Council have been trying to implement for years will be easily given up by them once installed. What mechanisms for feedback will be in place? If minority support is being cited by the Cllr as reason enough to implement why would a majority against make any difference in future?

I did ask this very question to James McAsh. He did not comment on that aspect. It?s not just SD on Melbourne but the whole area. Why has this particular measure been prioritised. Also, what impact will it have on surrounding streets? MG will now lose parking spaces because of double yellow lines viewed as necessary for this measure. Where will those cars park now?

A proportion of Melbourne is also to get double yellow lines (we are told this is to enable cars that need to turn around and go back ). So car owners on MG will also lose parking. This is being introduced as an emergency measure to achieve social distancing. However, many of you will know that the Council have been trying to close Melbourne Grove for years. James McAsh seems to indicate that a minority of households on MG supported this, not a majority. Surrounding streets will suffer. The council say this is a temporary measure but can we trust them?

Would it not be more sensible to look at the security angle before pursuing this? These are not inexpensive.

If only we could believe that.

Asking residents if they want CPZ on their road was always disingenuous since parking displacement is a well known phenomenon, especially when various other measures to reduce parking space are also underway. Let?s not pretend this was in any way even-handed. We get it, the Council needs the dosh, but please don?t dress it up as democracy, concern for our health or anything else.

So just to be clear, those that responded did not represent a majority of households or individuals within each street, but of the minority that did respond 80% were in favour? Or have I misunderstood?

But as you well know James, that methodology, dressed up as a fair approach, was assumed because it was the only way the Council could get CPZ underway across more than a few streets. Additionally, you deviated when it suited, Melbourne Grove Southside as a case in point. It is interesting that you see it as a matter of sides rather than the majority view. The majority of ED did not want it but are slowly being squeezed into capitulation. It is a long game now being speeded up using Covid.

James, thank you for your reply but the 80% is meaningless unless we know how many households of a total within each street that figure represents. It is not clear either if you are counting households or individuals? How many streets were included in your Councillor survey? Did you keep to the same method as for CPZ, that is a majority within a street? To understand just how much support there is, it is important to have this detail.

Please can someone explain exactly how the ?emergency? measures in MG encourage and help social distancing in ED? The south side is to be blocked adjacent to Tell Grove. Double yellow lines will be put in (an odd ?temporary measure?) apparently to suspend parking so that cars have room to turn and go the other way. So the hordes of pedestrians and cyclists now able to somehow better socially distance will also be weaving through cars doing three point turns? Meantime, parking pressure on all the surrounding streets will increase and will at some point beg for CPZ. The hope is that every resident who voted for the above will immediately sell their car if they own one.

Think Concordia, Hambledon and another organisation, have all merged into one mega super practice with a new name...so transparent. I am still uncomfortable that Southwark?s fave ?pet? super practice Concordia (run by a doctor and a clutch of investment bankers) and responsible for the historically appalling MGMP, won this bid. What a prize for so little merit.

I think they are using Covid as a tool to drive them through as emergency measures. We are told they are temporary and feedback will be monitored - believe that if you want. But, isn?t it a coincidence that many of the measures they wanted to implement long, long before Covid just happen to somehow be exactly the right ?Fix? for the current situation?