legalalien

Ex-dulwicher, we might have to agree to differ as the tone of the email exchange doesn?t sound like ?discussing options? to me, it sounds like ?telling TfL what we plan to do?. The exchange including the TfL response is now up on the OneDulwich site, and TfL?s response seems to be: ?do this experimentally for six months? That doesn?t make sense when you?re spending a ton of money to rip up a pedestrian road island and expect us to spend lots of time and effort on light phasing etc?. (That?s how it reads to me anyhow, but I am of course biased). https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ee5b2552f1141316ee2efc9/t/60ffcc179d9d0801c426a297/1627376669464/FOI+July+2021+RE_+Dulwich+Village+_Calton+Avenue+_+Dulwich+Village+_Redacted.pdf I actually think TfL have come across quite well in the various email exchanges that have been released and their FoI system seems to work well. I was amused to see that Southwark Councillors have requested that TfL copy Southwark in on any FoI responses involving the Dulwich scheme.

There don?t look to be any minutes : agenda for the Goodrich meeting on the website https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=533&MId=7169

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Really isn?t - you?d be surprised. I?d be an epic fail as a Stepford Wife. Happy to act as a safe house for your partner if needed ;) > Aaah Gilkes...all a bit Stepford Wives....I always > feel the hairs on the back of my neck go up when I > walk down there, surprised that the residents > association hasn?t introduced an entrance gate > with a security guard...my partner refuses to walk > down Gilkes...?it?s all a bit ?Get Out?? in their > opinion.

Does this work https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=7396 Gilkes is Appendix 16

If they were already discussing alternative plans with TfL before the consultation closed, then it's all a bit of a sham. For those who are in favour of the LTNs - I'd be interested to hear whether you think the council's and councillors' (if different) behaviour/ process around this project helps your cause or hinders it. If you are confident in the data/ that the LTNs work, then I suspect that the way the council has handled things might well be a cause of frustration - rather than letting the facts stand on their merits, they're sullying the pro-LTN argument by not following due process. I'd be pretty annoyed. ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So what happens now? The consultation is finished > - are we waiting for the council to publish the > results? Or perhaps they have no intention of > doing so?

I hate to be a kicker, I always long for peace, But the wheel that squeaks the loudest, Is the one that gets the grease. - Josh Billings (Henry Wheeler Shaw) (disclaimer - provenance of this saying is unverified...) alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > alice Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > There has never been an answer to why the > Dulwich > > LTNs were positioned to benefit the wealthiest. > > flurry of responses cannot answer the question.

Gilkes isn't an "existing LTN" unless the proposed Gilkes Place closure goes ahead. Looks like it has been approved today subject to call-in https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s100334/APPENDIX%2016%20GILKES%20PLACE.pdf I think the Gilkes one is experimental based on Table 1 in the report and the Network Management recommendation referred to (although confusingly the relevant appendix also refers to consultation on an (ordinary) TMO. There's a note in the report that "Gilkes Place ? the proposed ETMO does not preclude the Gilkes Place/Gilkes Crescent junction not being considered as part of the overall Dulwich area review. However, the junction can not be opened before the review is completed on safety grounds. " This seems to be in response to a suggestion that the Gilkes experimental order be deferred until after the overall Dulwich review had been completed.

Proposed decision on reopening Peckham Rye to buses and timed deliveries is on the council website. Decision due by tomorrow as I read it https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50026987

PS have been tied up with other stuff recently but looks like there's a decision notice on an experimental order to open Rye Lane to buses and timed deliveries. Haven't read properly yet. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s100450/Report%20Reopening%20Rye%20Lane.pdf

Frankly I'm more concerned about the fact that Southwark were asking TfL to meet and discuss removing the staggered pedestrian crossing in the Square of Shame (indicating a preference for permanent closure) weeks before the consultation even closed (see attached, am sure many will have seen on twitter). Also mystified that there was apparently no need to consult TfL before making the initial closure... but now there is a need (were someone's knuckles rapped?). Two options: (i) local councillors and the Cabinet Member / Council Leader were aware of officers trying to progress this before the consultation exercise completed and comments were considered (seems like bad faith to me); or (ii) the local councillors and /or Cabinet Member/ Council Leader weren't aware of what the officers were discussing with TfL - in which case maybe they should be making some noise and calling them out? Link to another recent FoI on TfL website for completeness - https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-of-information/foi-request-detail?referenceId=FOI-0574-2122, seems Helen Hayes might be starting to show some interest.

I hardly go to Gail's as it seems so expensive. But I do like a cheese and chive scone. If anyone can suggest other sources of savoury scones and muffins locally I'll be there.

I'm not sure it would change that much tbh. As I see it (lived experience, yes, and in this particular area rather than a London wide thing), the increased journey time/congestion and resultant pollution locally more than offsets the few short journeys that might have been replaced by active travel (given previously high active travel in the area). I think overall/ net pollution has probably increased ( as opposed to an overall reduction, the idea that the increase on "boundary" roads is exceeded by the decrease by drivers based in "in-LTN roads"). So regardless of the inequity issue - not OK to pollute boundary roads at the expense of LTN roads (which I still feel strongly about - ), I still think there's a problem, and my approach to the discussion would be the same. How do you think the discussion would change?

The things that google leads you to. I found this blog really interesting, was reading it this morning. https://southwarknotes.wordpress.com/. I don?t necessarily agree with everything but the commonality / links regarding council engagement with residents in this different context were instructive. heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well............https://betterelephant.github.io/b > log/2013/04/09/report-uncovers-corruption-at-the-e > lephant/ and > https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=55 > 835 also > > Peter Walker....local resident of an LTN cyclist > and Guardian Jounalist... ?He advocated reducing > endless consultation and getting more changes done > faster? note...the no consultation. > > And some LCC action with Disgraced....Simon Still

So many messages to read through. I understand that Cllr in Chief Kieron Williams and Cllr Rose had a zoom call with reps of residents? associations last night. I?m not sure which RAs. I had a message from ours at 4:15pm about a meeting at 5:30pm and didn?t see it until later that evening so didn?t get a chance to pass on my views to those attending from our street. Apparently the meeting was to ?discuss the ongoing Dulwich Review process, the experiences of your members and your ideas for the future? - the full text of the letter from the council wasn?t sent through to us. Is anyone else aware of this meeting : able to give some insight on what was discussed? Haven?t had an update from our RA.

Minor Traffic Schemes Batch 2 now published, think the only local one is an experimental TMO to put a permeable closure on Gilkes (where the current temporary closure is) https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50026422

This is what is so odd. I don?t drive either, and have mainly walked (and sometimes cycled) during the nearly 15 years I?ve been here - including school runs on some of the roads now being filtered - without any problem at all. Which I guess is why I don?t appreciate the upside of LTNs as much as some others who are making behavioural change. The walking experience locally has worsened overall for me due to air pollution/ noise/ traffic and cycles on pavements on key walking routes, so am with ab29 on that.

Not everyone going to hospital goes in an ambulance?

Never mind it?s working - the suggestion is to turn the existing timed restrictions into all day modal filters and also close off Red Post Hill? Again - not smart to close off routes to hospitals. And 24/7 will only make Croxted, LL and EDG worse. Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Meanwhile the pro-lobbyists ramp up the "it's > working" narrative on the basis of some seriously > suspect data from the council..... > > > https://twitter.com/southwarkcycle/status/14153244 > 20038668292?s=19

The rooftop housing I?m talking about is the stuff being built by Southwark on its council estates. Obviously not in affluent areas, and hardly the fault of Conservatives (except to the extent National planning policy might allow the Labour Council to do it, I guess). Just pointing out that voting dynamics are by no means all about LTNs, and lots of non-drivers in historic LTNs, as we are to call them, might be focused on other issues.

Do you think people voted in the mayoral election on the LTN issue given the mayor has practically no power or influence over LTNs? I certainly didn?t, and any candidate campaigning in that issue was really misleading people a bit. True of candidates across the spectrum. A lot of the anti-Labour sentiment locally is not so much anti-LTN sentiment as anti-the-way these councillors and this council are behaving. It extends to lots of people unhappy with similar behaviour in other contexts eg rooftop housing, failing to deal with / monitor developer commitments to provide social housing, building on green spaces.

I?ll acknowledge the point about Tom, although I still think it felt quite scripted. Do you think that when the June data comes, they?ll then compare it with an ?adjusted? June 2019 baseline then - or just give the new data? It should be the former? Hopefully they?ll also give some more info about on what basis they?ve done the ?adjustment?. northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > On the April point they did seem to indicate that > there would be more data for May and June coming > soon so that will be helpful to understand what is > a trend vs anomaly. > > I'd also agree that more granularity of data would > be helpful - I'd like to see the directional > traffic counts rather than in total and would > agree that weekday vs weekend would also be > helpful. > > The questions were supposed to be split by area > though - East Dulwich, then the village and then > champion hill so the fact that Tom of Denmark Hill > spoke at the end was because he was one of the > questionners from that area. The assumption that > only negative views can be genuine does reflect > your views rather than people being an obvious > plant.

I just went to it. I asked a question in the chat and put my hand up to ask as well and was roundly ignored - and the questions were pretty innocuous too, I thought. (In case they weren't innocuous, I asked (i) whether we could have a split out of weekday and weekend data on roads affected by the timed closures, to better understand the impact of the timed closures; and (ii) whether using April as the comparison month, which is a school holiday month, might mask any potential redirection of school traffic and also cycle to school traffic.) Mostly the feedback to the council was quite negative - one or two supporters including a fairly staged cameo by Tom of Denmark Hill (whoever that be) who Cllr Simmonds invited to speak right at the end. The interjections of "we don't trust you" summed it up quite well (my opinion obviously).

So: (i)the Council decided and announced in March that it plans to insource the leisure centre contract when it ends in June 2023. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s94286/Report%20Gateway%200%20-%20Appraisal%20of%20management%20options%20for%20leisure%20centres.pdf. (ii) Due to impact of the pandemic, Southwark?s had to plough additional funds in to meet running costs, highly likely the contractor has been making no profit for months and won?t for the balance of the term. (iii) in any outsourcing contact there?s a high risk of underperformance during an exit period and you need a really tightly drafted contract to give you ways of keeping the supplier motivated / penalising poor performance. We can?t see the contract but I doubt there are performance based incentives other than usage-based or share of income ones (and usage and income will be down due to COVID) or service credits for poor performance which would come off fees or income share ( but what if fees or income share aren?t being paid in this bail out situation - hard to know). The decision notice linked above doesn?t even identify poor service during the remaining period / exit period as a key risk of the insourcing option, which it is - particularly with a lead time as long as this. Why would the supplier consider improving its IT system or service in this situation? I wouldn?t expect an improvement any time soon.

I think it made sense to extend given they hadn?t published the data (in fact I might have suggested it on another thread). Everyone was criticising the failure to provide the data before the consultation window closed so a brief extension seems sensible to me. The selection and presentation of the data is a different issue. Critics were always expecting the presentation of the data to be ?spun? (in which case might have been better not to call for data to be provided and the additional meeting held before the deadline). It?s only a week at the end of the day. I would say that I?m sure the councillors must know the broad substance of the data by now, but at this point I?m not entirely sure what local councillors, compared to say the cabinet member, or the officers, know at any given point in time. I would be interested to hear from local councillors about precisely what data they are being given by officers and when. Do they get to see the raw data or are they just given the same information as is made public?

Is that a council document or something else (residents survey)? fottos Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Southwark's extension to the deadline is a futile > attempt to change reality. See image for their > interim results on the DV junction