Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I listened in on the relevant meeting and understand that it?s a feasibility study that has been commissioned on the EDG/ LL crossing (which they can?t meaningfully do until the tail end of the year when decisions have been taken on the local LTNs). The amount of money allocated in the recent round of funding is far short of what they would need to install a crossing here.

Serena2012 mentioned above and

legalalien added:

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

> I think I heard somewhere that the

> funding is for a feasibility study

> rather than putting in the crossing

> at this stage. But I'm not sure where.


That seems to me more likely, given the ascribed cost of ?12,000 and the list of project types that can be considered, at page 40 of the South multi-ward forum Public report pack available at http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgChooseDocPack.aspx?ID=6871:

5. Commencing in 2017/18, the scope of the fund has been widened to

permit the full range of minor traffic and highway capital schemes rather

than solely like-for-like repair and replacement. Examples of the types

of works which can now be funded include:

? Footway and carriageway resurfacing;

? Traffic calming;

? Localised repairs;

? Accessibility improvements;

? Footway buildouts;

? Cycle hangars.

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Cycle lane EDG .... yes please. So many cyclists

> on this road, please make it safer for them. The

> crossing will be great, that junction is so

> dangerous for us pedestrians.


Totally agree but until dulwich routes are open again is there enough room for bus and bike lanes?

Cycle lane.. not along all of it, but probably from the bend up to the crossing, so from where the Dutch estate starts up to the Half Moon crossing, take off street parking away from the left hand side as not used so much after the parking zone, there is unused parking on the rail track side of the Dutch estate that could be opened up to local residents- but yes EDG is very busy with traffic due to the 4 LTNs so opening those roads would be better for cyclists generally. Unfortunately the LCC will not agree......

Sue Wrote:

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

> It's weird, because if memory serves they have

> being saying for years that it was not possible to

> have a crossing there.

>

> I can't remember their reasons.


This is where (according to a Google search) they got to last time. I suspect the consultation was canned due to Covid-19. Many of the previous issues re: visibility of the crossing; the fact that the lights on Lordship Lane, South of the junction are in the wrong place; the narrowness of the pavement & TFL objections in view of potential delays to bus journey times are likely to persist, hence why a feasibility study as opposed to a solution is what is currently being proposed: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/status_of_request_for_pedestrian

kford Wrote:

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

> Traffic will be backed up to Heber Road with

> lights there


People said there would be problems with the two (then) new pedestrian crossings in Lordship Lane, but to the best of my knowledge there haven't been any issues?

The crossings' reds aren't on for as long as they would be for the two ways at that junction, which would presumably also have a right filter green from LL plus an all-green pedestrian cycle.


Sue Wrote:

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

> kford Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Traffic will be backed up to Heber Road with

> > lights there

>

> People said there would be problems with the two

> (then) new pedestrian crossings in Lordship Lane,

> but to the best of my knowledge there haven't been

> any issues?

Just to add that I don?t think the introduction of a signalised crossing at this junction is guaranteed. When presenting this, Charlie Smith implied that they were also contemplating a zebra crossing. Whatever ends up being proposed will need to be discussed with TFL and is likely to be subject to public consultation.

Sue Wrote:

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

> A zebra crossing would maybe work, but cars often

> just ignore the fact that a pedestrian is on the

> crossing.

>

> Also, on busy days, cars would never get over the

> crossing!


It?s far from straightforward, which I?m guessing is why it?s been debated for years and yet no panacea has been identified. It will be interesting to see what comes out of the feasibility study.

The thing is, like the terrible dangerous (for pedestrians) junction where the South Circular meets the continuation of Lordship Lane by the derelict pub, if someone was killed or seriously injured here, they would come up with a solution PDQ.


Speaking of which, I thought it had been agreed to install pedestrian crossings at the South Circular junction. Does anybody have an update on that? I can't remember what the timescale was.

During my time as a Councillor we looked at this several times. We even had a report commissioned by Southwark Council. Hopefully they won't blow money repeating it!

To put traffic lights there we were told Lordship Lane would have to have no parking from Goose Green roundabout to outside the Coop. Even then it was extremely likely TfL London Buses would block such lights.

It would also mean pedestrians having to wait uptimes o 2 minutes to cross East Dulwich Grove. Effectively downgrading the pedestrian priority.


The Pelican crossing and raised junction was an attempt to get some improvement. My lot thought a Zebra crossing right on the pedestrian desire line was needed - probably with a pavement build out into Lordship Lane. This would maximise pedestrian priority.

TfL 'tentatively' aspires to commence work on the Lordship Lane/Dulwich Common junction (aka The Grove Tavern junction) in 2020.


Though, given the government's just getting started on another round of austerity and spectacularly raised the bar in terms of dismissable deaths, I strongly doubt they're doing much more than waiting for the money to run out. It is, after all, a fairly expensive project as it doesn't just involve nailing a button to a lamp-post but building four separate staggered walkways which are necessary, I gather, if pedestrians aren't to get the impression that their time is as valuable as anyone else's.


We have, after all, been here before, with an approved, and fully-funded, improvement project all signed and sealed and teetering on the brink of actuality until it all magically evaporated when our dear friends and neighbours chose to elect Johnson as our mayor. A surprising number of people, it seems, would prefer children not to access nature until they've had a good chance of being killed or injured first and, perhaps unsurprisingly, their arguments seem to hold weight in all the best corridors of power.

DulwichDaddio Wrote:

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

> If this is an example of good news, then the OP

> must lead a really, really boring life.



Ah, a "new" poster, just joined under this name today.


How lovely. Wonder how long it will be before this incarnation gets banned?

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

    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
    • Another recommendation for Silvano. I echo everything the above post states. I passed first time this week with 3 minors despite not starting to learn until my mid-30s. Given the costs for lessons I have heard, he's also excellent value.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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