Traffic Calming for West Square Area

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  1 2 Next
Current: 1 of 2
Thursday 19 September 2002 10.08pm
Why have they introduced traffic calming on Trinity Street when there are real problems and very narrow 2 ways streets with cut throughs on Elliots Row/Hayles Street/Brook Drive/Oswin Street ? Is it about Wealth
VM
Friday 20 September 2002 10.20pm
Ha ha

I think you might get flamed for this, or ignored for the naughty boy that you are. I do think that protection of property prices might well have something to do with it, though it does nothing for the surrounding area. Residents there do indeed seem rather ummm pleased, let's say. I understand that the buildings in that square need protection from the rumblings of traffic, but the way the one way system that has been devised seems to have been designed to inconvenience anyone around Trinity Square. Comments winging their way to the Council as we type.
Friday 20 September 2002 10.32pm
This scheme has certianly made the traffic much worse in Swan Street and also at the Great Dover St / Borough High Street junction. Classic case of the "law of unintended consequences" why n you intervene in a complex system. This was driven by GLA rather than LB Southwark. Feels like someone producing a "solution" to a "problem" that never existed.
Sunday 22 September 2002 7.33am
Strange how the old church in trinity square was deemed to be unsafe for worship about 25 years ago, but not unsafe for the private company that purchased it for a rehearsal hall for a large orchestra to practise in. and surprise surprise the church is still standing.
Still it saved the elite of our borough coming out on a sunday morning seeing the hoi poloi going to church . it's taken them many years though to get rid of the hoi poloi's cars..but persistence pays off I suppose.



and the porcine element takes to the sky...
Monday 23 September 2002 7.49am
Cant help but agree with David's comments - certainly the traffic redirection has meant far worse traffic jams, plus the surrounding residential roads which will probably have far more children etc about will become far busier. But then since in housing terms they are far more public rather than private in nature - can't help but think the balance seems all wrong on this one (benefit vs cost).

If you look at middle england, the NIMBYs seem to have far more succes on campaigning against / for things that will impact their standard of living and property prices than anyone in innner cities. It seems the impact is spreading to those in inner cities who have the poshest voices.
Monday 23 September 2002 7.36pm
My understanding is that this was a Transport for London (ie, GLA) initiative rather than a LB Southwark one. It seems to be accepted here that this was something achieved by the "posh people" in Trinity Street / Trinity Church Square lobbying. This may be the case, but does anyone have any evidence that their lobbying was crucial? Or was it just another of TFL's "good ideas"? And are the people in thise two streets that posh? - my impression is that the buildings in those two streets are mainly divided into quite small flats with rents / sales prices by no means large by SE1 standards. For clarification, I am against the scheme (see earlier post).
Tuesday 24 September 2002 12.13pm
can I correct a few of you misconceptions. The traffic calming plan has been campaigned for for many (>10 yrs) and has been worked up by LBS NOT TfL.

The vast majority of this housing stock in TCS and environs is owned by Trinity House and leased on short assured leases, often to people on low incomes and elderly. The estate therefore is not peopled predominantly by the "hoi -peloi" and "rich" etc etc.

These are residential streets and should not be used by through traffic at high speeds. This concept seems new to you, but travel to other london boroughs and you will notice that this traffic scheme, aimed at keeping most traffic on the large main roads is hardly controversial or a new concept. I suggest you look at the correspondence on the related discussion site "last time to drive down trinity street" - for fear of repeating old arguments. As for the church - it was rescued from near demolition - almost became a BP garage. It is NOT owned by a private company and it is leased at peppercorn rent for use as rehearsal studios and for concerts by orchestras which would otherwise have to pay large sums to other bodies.

The church is also regularly used by the local residents as a community resourse.

I suggest that you get you facts right before publishing your opinions on the net.
Tuesday 24 September 2002 2.27pm
With reference to John Criddle's note: oh dear, like so many people who post here you seem to think it necessary to adopt a sarcastic and aggressive tone with anyone with anyone who dares to disagree even a little with your personal point of view.

For example, "These are residential streets and should not be used by through traffic at high speeds. This concept seems new to you,". No, the concept is not at all new to me. I just happen to disagree with this particular scheme, the results of which have been (so far as I can determine as a very local resident) not to displace traffic onto "large main roads" but rather from one set of residential streets onto another.

You also wrote, "I suggest that you get you facts right before publishing your opinions on the net." Precisely becasue I was not sure of the facts - and was seeking clarification - my post was full of phrsases like "My understanding is..."This may be the case" and "does anyone have any evidence that?".

You seem to think it unacceptable for anyone to post even a question until and unless one arrives at a state of God-like certainty. This reminds me of what Cromwell said to one of his more miltant adherents - "I wish I was as certain of anything as you are of everything".

The net effect is to leave me concluding that there is no point contributing to this discussion forum if all it draws forth is bile from those who have nothing but contempt for any view other than their own. Once you have driven everyone else away, you can carry on a dialogue of the deaf with all the others who share your intolerant and aggressive ways.

I for one have no problem with people who post things "before they get their facts right". For that reason, I do not mind in the slightest you using the term "hoi-peloi" as a synonyym for the rich, even though - if you had checked your facts before posting on the net - you would have discovered that the term "hoi polloi" is from an Ancient Greek term meaning "the common people".

John, by all means put forward your point of view as vigorously as you want, but please do not assume that anyone who takes a different view must be a fool or a knave. You clearly have much local knowledge and experience. Would it be an unacceptable betrayal of your truths to deploy it with a little more courtesy...?
Tuesday 24 September 2002 2.32pm
Oh dear, I don't think John was criticising you, Kelvin...
Tuesday 24 September 2002 2.58pm
I think this is all wonderful and 3 cheers for the internet to allow people to turn any sensible discussion into something revolving around 'the haves and the have nots'.

You all squabble like children. I've looked through a number of topics on this forum and, regardless of the topic, all I hear is, the 'toffs have done this', the 'hoi-peloi' have done that.

Amazing - instead cruising chat rooms, I suggest we all do some work and, maybe, we might one day be one of those 'toffs' ourselves.

Banter is one thing - but, this is...
Pages:  1 2 Next
Current: 1 of 2

To post a message, please log in or register..

Keep up with SE1 news

We have three email newsletters for you to choose from:

Proud to belong to

Independent Community News Network