Crashes involving people being injured are up. They’re up 13% on last year.
Killed and serious injuries are down for all categories except motorcyclists. But overall casualties are up due to slight injuries which have been rising since 2007.
One line of inquiry for TfL is that the rising London population and resulting journeys is to cause this. So effectively the rate of crashes involving injuries would be down. I hope they reach a conclusion soon. Those slight injuries could preclude a rapid rise in more serious injuries.
Southwark Council have changed it’s planning rules around car and bicycle parking for new developments. The overall aim is to ensure better provision for cyclists and more sensible car parking levels.
All the speel within the documentation talks about more cycle parking and sensible car parking levels.
But then when you look at the details it clearly is worse in a number of places – while still saying it’s better. Not newspeak and parkingspeak
Come on Southwark correct these whoppers:
B1 offices cycle parking – described as “Double the number of spaces compared to FALP and increased provision compared to existing policy” short term cycle parking currently 1 space per 250m2. FALP stated as 1 per 500m2. New Southwark proposed 1 per 500m2.
So its now x2 worse than current parking levels.
B1 light industrial – this is x4 worse than current parking levels.
B2-B8 is x2 worse than current parking levels.
Do we think the following makes sense whatever FALP says:
D1 university/colleges long-term 1 space per 20 students. This expects 5% of students to cycle. But Southwarks short-term cycling targets are higher than this. In fact current rates of cycling are higher than this.
I would have thought D1 other was a more applicable standard?
Amazed at the new residential car parking standards for lower PTAL areas. Min of 1.5 car parking spaces. And no mention of spaces reserved for car club spaces.
Which areas are PTAL1, 2 and 3 ?
The description is the new Southwark standards are tougher than FALP but for PTAL 1 FALP says up to 2 spaces, whereas Southwark says min 1.5 to max of 2. Clearly worse than FALP.
Why haven’t we adopted FALP?
2002 Southwark Lib Dems initiated the Cleaner, Greener, Safer programme where each ward in Southwark gets a pot of capital money to allocate to new projects.
Last night we decided which projects to support in East Dulwich ward – ED CGS 15_16
Safer: Fencing between Dulwich library and St.Thomas Moore RC Church, Library Annexe opened as new space for Police surgeries and the like, More Crime Prevention, Norcroft Gardens fencing and lgihting.
Cleaner: Friern Road estate play area renewal, Goose Green School entrance, East Dulwich Community Centre new flooring.
Greener: Lots more trees locally, Physic GardenHeber School Upcycle Garden.
Our next funding decision will be our £25,000 of revenue funding in March. If you have any ideas to make the area better please let us know.
Southwark Labour have just confirmed what roads and pavements they will renew over the next three financial years. It’s great they plan to spend more over the next three years but to fund this they plan to drastically reduce budgets in future years. Topically this remind me of GReek government finances.
But the decision has many duplications. For example they plan to renew 10% of footways on Dovercourt Road this coming financial year (FY) but then renew 100% of the footways in FY 17_18! Similar duplications for Aysgarth Road, Beauval Road, Casino Avenue, Copleston Road, Danecroft Road, Elmwood Road, Playfield Crescent, Wyneham Road.My favourite is replacing 75% of Tell Grove footwards in FY 2016/17 & then another 75% in FY 2017/18.
Grove Vale is called Grove Lane, some streets listed as in Dulwich are in SE1.
You could not make this up.
Perhaps their is a simple explanation. Eitherway do take a look at the currently signed off plans for road and pavement renewals in Southwark and those specific to the Dulwich area: Highway renewals
Needless to say I’veasked for the decisionto be repeated – in the Dulwich area alone we’ve spotted £147,000 of duplications. So for the whole of Southwark the errors are likely to be around £1M. Ouch!
The biggest industry and businesses in the Dulwich area are in education. Not just the required schools for local children – the 3 out of the 4 state secondary school or 11 infant and primary schools but also the private schools – 3 secondary schools and 5 infant and primary schools. (Kingsdale with it lottery admissions is no longer a genuinely local school).
These private schools and Kingsdale do attract many local children but they also have huge catchment areas. They support a private school bus network required to support such hugely expanded schools. And their expansion has been marked over the years.
I don’t blame the parents or children coming so far. We have great local schools but with so many now coming from so far it is contributing to serious local congestion.
The irony of those private schools being the core of a the Dulwich and Herne Hill Safe Route to School group while contributing so much to the congestion this worthy group wish to reduce won’t be lost on local residents. This group is now supporting measures to limit local junctions to try and reduce local congestion.
Southwark Council needs to find ways to reduce these attractive schools catchment areas and the congestion large catchment areas is causing.
I Southwark Council will use the planning process to impose new admissions conditions to further this aim.
This would be the route to minimising congestion and the harm and danger this causes local school pupils
Every year we have a little devolved highway renewals money to allocate on East Dulwich ward.
This year we’ve decided to allocated our 2015/16 £38.095 on:
1. £24,843 on renewing the pavement along Lordship Lane eastern side going northwards from North Cross Road.
2. £13,252 remaining on repairing the pavement on Landells Road not repaied this financial year. The total cost would be £37,257 Goodrich Road to lordship lane along landells Road but we have to start somewhere.
Sadly we don’t have sufficient money £88,636 in our devolved pot to resurface Rodwell Road footways. Sorry.
Transport for London with Southwark Council are consulting about changing to the northern Elephant & Castle roundabout.
They plan to remove the SE corner. It will mean everyone has to travel a lot further to get from A to B around this area. For the life of me, and it might mean my life as the roundabout is that dangerous, I can’t see how making cyclists travel through so much more traffic to get somewhere will be safer.
Overall it looks a terrible missed opportunity. Take a look for yourself and tell me what you think CONSULTATION.
What they should do is move the Faraday electric substation dimpled structure somewhere else and turn the whole thing into a proper traffic light junction. It would create much more new public space. Traffic light cross road junctions offer the most direct route. Segregated cycle paths become much simpler to install and for people to understand.
Instead TfL are making the same mistake as the Waterloo roundabout and the south side of Westminster bridge.
It’s as if they don’t want safe cycling or is it that a nice simple totally legible junction just isn’t challenging enough for them?
At Southwarks Planning sub-Committee A 15 October we had to decide on a Dulwich school re organising its parking. It caters for 5-13 year old boys.
This application was designed to enable a more secure site for child safety and while doing this upgrade the playground. This was in response to Southwark Council highlighting child safety concerns.
Sadly it also requires the loss of depending how you read the plans 4 to 7 car parking spaces for staff. I read the before and after plans as reducing staff parking from 36 to 32 car parking spaces while doubling cycle parking.
Residents highlighted that a few parents while dropping kids double park or block driveways. Police officers have been subject to verbal abuse. It sounds so familiar of other schools.
We approved the planning application but will new conditions we’ve not tried before:
1. Green travel required to be reviewed within 6 months, 1 year at 18months and then annually.
2. That the green travel plan includes a protocol for working with local police where the school will take sanctions against families whose parents abuse the police or break parking rules.
I’m keen to see the final green travel plan to ensure the committees intentions that I led on are implemented as we anticipated.
Tuesday evening Southwark Labour agreed their Southwark Cycling Strategy. It has a number of flaws. One of the most stark omissions being around ensuring cycle facilities stay open.
One of the key objectives from a cyclists perspective: “Objective 2.6 Maintain cycling infrstructure and surfaces as part of our maintenance work programmes”
While they were doing this officers under their direction were arranging the closure, announced in Southwark News on the Thursday, of the closure for 18 months starting 3 November of one of the most key pieces of existing cycle infrasdtructure in Southwark. So much for maintaining cycling infrstructure.
Churchyard Row is an integral part of the Elephant & Castle cycle bypass. It is also a key part of Cycle Superhighway no.7. An alternative via St.Mary’s Churchyard Gardens has been suggest.
Churchyard Row is one of the most cycled parts of Southwark by far. It is baffling why Churchyard Row is being closed. Southwark council states to enable building works by Mace on the adjacent site but I can not imagine they would allow a Red route or A or even B road to be totally closed for 18 months and this cycle route is the equivalent for cyclists.
Cyclists are clearly second class citizens to Southwark Labour.
Churchyard Row is an integral part of the E&C cycle bypass – the northern roundabout being the most dangerous junction in Southwark by far for cyclists and in the worst ten junctions for London. The proposed alternative will be significantly less desirable. It will deter some from cycling at all and push others away from the bypass and Cycle Superhighwat and into using the most dangerous junction in Southwark for cyclists.
On this basis I have formally objected to this Traffic Management Order. The likely changes in cyclists behaviour from the proposal and resulting risks weigh far out weigh any inconvenience for Mace building works. The alternative route is also not a road which I understand is a requirement under the 1984 Traffic Act.
I have asked Council officials to explain why they think cycling through the adjacent park is a legal alternative road?
On a personal note I am shocked that the same week Southwark’s Labour Cabinet approved its Cycling Strategy for Southwark it has agreed this closing of one of the most important cycling facilities in Southwark. Farcical at best.