Jump to content

Recommended Posts

There has been a number of road closures in the area which force traffic to have to all flow in the same direction. This must have an impact the congestion and frustration of drivers / pedestrians. I would like to see some of the roads along Barry road re opened and allow for traffic not to have to take long detours. The fact all cars are left idling at lights and travelling further must be counter productive. This site has always been an issue, I recall travelling through on my school days and there being issues although not too serious. Isn't time to review the council's poor record on traffic management? Unintended consequences of pandering to small groups ( usually one / two residents) with loud voices has undoubtedly become a major issue for us all. Glad lady is reportedly well, this will no doubt stay with her for a while now.

1921, it?s TFL that have responsibility for the junction - not Southwark. This is the response from TFL - you can follow the link through to the detailed output.


Dear Sir or Madam


Between 13 September and 25 October 2018, we consulted on proposals to introduce formal pedestrian signalised crossing arrangements at the junction of Dulwich Common and Lordship Lane.


We have now published our Consultation Report, which summarises how we sought comments and feedback on our proposals. We have also published our responses to the most common issues raised during the consultation.


In total, we received 274 responses to the consultation of which:


? 91 per cent supported or strongly supported the overall proposal to make changes to the pedestrian crossings and cycling facilities; and

? 3 per cent opposed or strongly opposed our proposal


We tentatively anticipate commencing the project early in 2020.


We are currently revisiting the design of the scheme to investigate the possibility of introducing a crossing at the southern arm of the junction.


We will inform local residents and stakeholders of any design changes before any construction takes place.


You can find our consultation report and responses to issues raised here: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/a205-dulwich-common-lordship-lane/.

I hear you - but we?ve lived here for over 10 years and people have been pushing TFL to do something about that junction for longer than that. It is nothing short of a miracle that they?ve finally agreed to listen and risk slowing down traffic (which has been their 100% driver to date). So I?ll take 2020!

Siduhe Wrote:

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

> I hear you - but we?ve lived here for over 10

> years and people have been pushing TFL to do

> something about that junction for longer than

> that. It is nothing short of a miracle that

> they?ve finally agreed to listen and risk slowing

> down traffic (which has been their 100% driver to

> date). So I?ll take 2020!



Completely agree. And they do say early 2020.

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

    • If you want to look for blame, look at McKinsey's. It was their model of separating cost and profit centres which started the restructuring of the Post Office - once BT was fully separated off - into Lines of Business - Parcels; Mail Delivery and Retail outlets (set aside the whole Giro Bank nonsense). Once you separate out these lines of business and make them 'stand-alone' you immediately make them vulnerable to sell off and additionally, by separating the 'businesses' make each stand or fall on their own, without cross subsidy. The Post Office took on banking and some government outsourced activity - selling licences and passports etc. as  additional revenue streams to cross subsidize the postal services, and to offer an incentive to outsourced sub post offices. As a single 'comms' delivery business the Post Office (which included the telcom business) made financial sense. Start separating elements off and it doesn't. Getting rid of 'non profitable' activity makes sense in a purely commercial environment, but not in one which is also about overall national benefit - where having an affordable and effective communications (in its largest sense) business is to the national benefit. Of course, the fact the the Government treated the highly profitable telecoms business as a cash cow (BT had a negative PSBR - public sector borrowing requirement - which meant far from the public purse funding investment in infrastructure BT had to lend the government money every year from it's operating surplus) meant that services were terrible and the improvement following privatisation was simply the effect of BT now being able to invest in infrastructure - which is why (partly) its service quality soared in the years following privatisation. I was working for BT through this period and saw what was happening there.
    • But didn't that separation begin with New Labour and Peter Mandelson?
    • I am not disputing that the Post Office remains publicly owned. But the Lib Dems’ decision to separate and privatise Royal Mail has fatally undermined the PO.  It is within the power of the Labour government to save what is left of the PO and the service it provides to the community, if they care enough; I suspect they do not.  However, the appalling postal service is a constant reminder of the Lib Dems’ duplicity on this matter. It is actions taken under the Lib Dem / Conservative coalition that have brought us to this point.
    • Hello We are looking for a stroller lightweight pushchair to use on holidays etc. Our son is 18 months. Anyone looking to sell one? Thanks! 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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