legalalien

What? I didn?t comment on any of it I was just posting for info? That?s a pretty dramatic response if it?s responding to my post today.

Southwark's Climate Emergency Strategy now posted in advance of cabinet meeting next week, see https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/b50013388/Appendices%20Tuesday%2013-Jul-2021%2011.00%20Cabinet.pdf?T=9 There are some issues/ council views on issues around transport as well as other things - haven't read it yet.

Climate Emergency Strategy now published as one of the appendices to the reports for next week's cabinet meeting, for anyone interested. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/b50013388/Appendices Tuesday 13-Jul-2021 11.00 Cabinet.pdf?T=9 Document also includes Southwark Stands Together annual report and draft Southwark Equality Framework. Other parts of the papers for the meeting indicate amends to the constitution to address climate emergency and equality issues, essentially to require their consideration when making decisions. Southwark are adopting the equality duty around socioeconomic status that was included in the Equality Act but has not yet been brought into force under that Act. Haven't read any of the documents yet.

Was just looking at the agenda for next week?s Cabinet meeting: https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=7042. One of the Lib Dem councillors has tabled a motion calling on the Council to rethink its current policy of addressing the housing shortage in the borough by building on green spaces in existing estates, and that these green spaces be protected: https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s99857/Report%20Motions.pdf I haven?t seen much discussion of the issue on here even though there?s a fair bit about it in local newspapers and social media so thought I?d flag for general awareness, I?m not quite sure where I think the balance between the conflicting policy goals lies - my instinct is to favour protecting the green spaces but I?m not sure I know enough of the background detail to be sure about particular developments. Some background articles https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/campaigners-protest-against-plans-to-build-on-a-much-loved-green-space-in-peckham/ https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/peckham-green-protesters-feel-new-hope-after-southwark-council-cancels-nearby-developments/

That would be 4:48 mins to run a mile I think - bit better than jogging! You?re right that you can?t use the US injury figure to suggest there are the same levels of danger associated with this particular trial, of course. Those illegally riding privately owned scooters at higher speeds on the roads are the ones putting themselves at highest risk.

FYI Southwark has now formally decided to sign up to the pan-London e-scooter trial, which enables them to eg specify some no go zones, reduced speed zones, parking hubs etc. Decision notice here : https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s99526/Report%20-%20London%20eScooters%20trial.pdf To read more about the background and the identified benefits and risks, worth reading the TfL equalities impact assessment. I found the info about the risks of serious / head injury, compared with cycling, quite alarming. https://content.tfl.gov.uk/rental-escooter-trial-2021.pdf

I think Prof Aldred might agree with heartblock. https://repository.uel.ac.uk/download/05e32a098f5ff9a9ab80e6fd51818c891e33f7917940f2911548f7a18332ed35/152181/Aldred%252C%2520R.%25282008%2529%2520Sociology%252042%2520%25285%2529%2520887-903.pdf "Thanks to critics, medical science publications now take seriously conflicts of interest, although radical scholars argue that disclosure is inadequate and such conflicts must be ended. However, this issue is relatively new for social researchers; as Bell and Bryman (2007: 67) comment, management researchers rarely disclose affiliations and consultancy is seen as an unproblematic benefit. More critical analysis is needed of the commodification of social research: here we may learn from medical scientists? critiques of corporate funding of clinical research. While social researchers lack techniques that kill or injure participants (Dingwall 2006) social research, like medical research, may have damaging effects at a societal level. These effects could relate to what we do as researchers, but also to what we do not do, if we fail to analyse and critique organsiations and elites. Such issues should be the subject of professional and external debate, as with respect to medical research."

Perhaps the difference between science and social science is part of the issue here? http://www.differencebetween.net/science/difference-between-science-and-social-science/. It's an interesting discussion I've had with people before (possibly around a dinner table with too much wine involved).

Actually to add the rest of the paragraph for the first quote: "The absence of rigorous, national school travel data suggests children?s mobility is not valued as highly as adult commuting. This data gap is a barrier to research and inclusive transport planning. As Dr Anna Goodman, who was part of the Propensity to Cycle Tool (PCT) team, explains: ?If we had that data, we could do really high-quality research into the impact that school streets or low traffic neighbourhoods have on travel to school. As it is, we haven't got very far beyond anecdote on those questions.? So the research to date is anecdote, rather than high-quality research? She's describing her own research e.g. the Dulwich cycle count, no?

That's not good news for local cheese fans with high cholesterol levels (me). Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There is a cheese shop opening next to Au Ciel in > Dulwich Village.

No,but I've had another flyer from Clean Air Dulwich: "Ask for MORE not less" and "Don't lose it. Improve it."

But all about cycling again - when most children walk to school. As a non-driving pedestrian female parent, having the boundary roads - which are generally the most direct /unavoidable walking routes prioritised is more important to me than cycle infrastructure. I sometimes feel we could all have had a more constructive conversation if we'd had a discussion about reducing car usage that focused initially on public transport and walking, and left cycling out of it. The discussion of peer review reminded me how much I enjoyed the Sunday Philosophy Club /Isabel Dalhousie books. I must dig them out and re-read. Otto2 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Interesting article -- > https://www.transportxtra.com/publications/local-t > ransport-today/features/69199/do-inclusive-transpo > rt-strategies-really-consider-the-needs-of-all-

I agree, surely the coffee/ wine/ deli market locally is a bit saturated?

The problem is that some of the ?little spaces? are in the wrong places and congest traffic that is travelling for necessary longer journeys that can?t be, and are therefore not being, substituted by public transport or active travel. No problem in principle with the little neighbourhood spaces but the big picture needs to be looked at and balanced against this, a patchwork of isolated projects by individual councils doesn?t work. That?s one of my concerns.

I get that but don't entirely agree. For people that make long journeys, the cumulative effect of various LTNs can be significant. It's not just one LTN that impacts the journey as you leave your house. Particularly where the LTNs block off or serious congest roads that have historically been important arterial routes. You're not adding 10 mins to a long journey, you're adding eg 5 or 6 times 10 mins to the journey. Ask any delivery driver, carer etc.

I get that but for some purposes it?s important eg if LTNs reduce car trips by 5% but increase the length of the remaining trips by 40% for example, that?s relevant? Not to mention increase in idling? Surely we need both sets of data?

Thanks heartblock, I?ll have a read. The comment from David Metz fits with my gut reaction to some of the assumptions in those PTC manuals. I do think there?s something in the question of where the shift to cycling is coming from. If people are swapping walking for cycling then that?s a net negative on the swapped journeys (in terms of health benefits and traffic congestion): however I guess there?s an argument that there might be a benefit if someone who walks 60% of journeys and drives 40% of journeys now cycles 100% as a result of getting a bike and bike storage. Although the PCT FAQs show that when modelling, the modellers saw a 100% shift in trips as unlikely. I?d like the data to be based on distance travelled rather than numbers of people or trips, but no one seems willing or able to collect that data.

I had a quick look at the propensity to cycle tool mentioned in the Goodman report re increased cycling in the village https://www.pct.bike/ (Note that this is a tool designed by a team led by prof Aldred/ anna Goodman which describes itself as ?designed to assist transport planners and policy makers to prioritise investments and interventions to promote cycling?. I haven?t had a chance to try and see whether it suggests the Village should be a focus. I note that there?s a hefty disclaimer including that ?The PCT is limited by the geographic resolution of the origin-destination data it uses, and uses a deterministic (not probabilistic) routing algorithm. Thus, care should be taken when using the PCT to plan for specific interventions, for example estimating cycling potential on two parallel streets. The tool is designed to support planning based on local knowledge and we cannot accept liability for any loss or damage caused.? (The parallel streets thing made me think of the Croxted / Rosendale situation). If you look at the schools layer you can see the 2011 census info about numbers of pupils travelling to local state primaries by mode, which suggests that most children were walking to school back then. As notes in the Goodman report the independent schools aren?t included, which probably skews the figures. I started to read manual C2 which indicates that the tool may suggest / take into account the potential for children to switch from walking to cycling (not just driving to cycling) which can result in a less energy- intensive form of active travel for those children, which is interesting. Also quite interesting to see the relative percentages of people commuting to work by cycle vs by car back in 2011.

I think the cycle interest (LCC plus their Southwark branch) in this area is part of a plan to ensure a viable end to end long distance commuting network - the idea that the cycling network is only as strong as its weakest link-rather than a concern for local cycling. The DV junction, Champion Hill, various other routes are critical to this. Safe Routes to Schools also keen on cycling but possibly don?t need to focus on the same routes as their concern is local trips. But there?s something of an unholy alliance (my perception) that prevents the two issues being considered separately. The various pro LTN groups are stronger together, no doubt, even if specific tweaks might work for one or other group. Just my perception.

Came across this report on the DfT website https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cycling-and-walking-safety-rapid-evidence-assessment. Published in 2020 (but dated 2018), it?s a ?rapid evidence assessment? on cycling and walking safety commissioned by DfT, in an attempt to find evidence that could be used to improve people?s perceptions of safety, thereby increasing propensity to walk and cycle. What?s striking about the document is what little hard data /evidence there seems to be for safety improvements for many of the interventions we?ve seen in the last few years. I?d always assumed that the fact that segregated cycle tracks would improve cyclist safety was a no-brainer, and that the debate was about the trade off between this and congestion. It seems that?s not the case, eg: ?There is also a set of interventions for which the evidence is more mixed. Overall, the evidence on cycle lanes and on cycle tracks that physically separate cyclists from motor traffic is inconclusive. There is no clear evidence that cycle lanes reduce risk, but the evidence suggests that physically separated cycle tracks may be more likely to be effective in reducing risk, but that cycle track design is vital in determining effectiveness, especially at intersections. Some key features for cycle design at intersections include bringing tracks close to parallel vehicle traffic to increase visibility; raising motor vehicle crossings at intersections; providing advance stop lines for vehicles; and dedicated signals to separate cyclists from turning vehicles.? And this conclusion: ?Many of the cycling and walking interventions covered in this rapid evidence assessment show promise for reducing risk or perceived risk for cyclists and pedestrians. However, there is a lack of well-designed evaluations that adequately control for bias and also a lack of evidence that explores impact on both risk and participation.? It feels a bit as though the data gathering is following the policy rather than the other way around. Someone reassure me that not all government policy-making works that way! I think it is Prof Aldred?s colleague, Anna Goodman, who did the DV cycle count whose parents live in Dulwich, it was mentioned in some of the publicity surrounding that.

Or get the independent schools and some of the state schools to be less selective and reduce their catchment areas so we don?t have Dulwich children commuting to Croydon and vice versa? Perhaps a willingness to commit to active travel / public transport to school could be built into the selection criteria? (Only slightly tongue in cheek). Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Wow Legal > > Your counter argument has actually been useful in > highlighting the solution > > It's not street closures or LTNs > > It's simply to relocate schools away from the area > thus dumping traffic on other boroughs and driving > away the parents who moved here to be within the > catchment area further reducing car usage and > congestion > > Of course it's all tongue in cheek but an > interesting alternative to LTNs

Sorry - busy answering emails. Dulwich is a part of the borough with very high levels of car ownership as well as a large number of popular schools which attract pupils from a wide catchment area. As a result, there is a peak in traffic during the time periods in which students travel to and from school. Those time periods are longer than might be expected for a single school, because of the high number of independent schools in the area, which have earlier start times and later finish times than their state counterparts. Despite long term campaigning and attempts by many schools to encourage pupils to walk or cycle to school, the prevailing culture in many of the schools had (prior to the LTNs) changed very little: the majority of primary aged children at the independent schools in particular were driven to and from school, and thereafter to a range of after school activities. This was the case whether they lived locally or further afield, and the cars concerned were largely environmentally unfriendly SUVs. The volume of vehicles created a safety hazard for pedestrians and cyclists; which then reinforced the "we have to drive" behaviour. The five-way Dulwich Village junction, in particular, was dangerous, with cars turning into Court Lane unsure about the change in rights of way that happened following the previous re-design of the junction. With limited powers at its disposal, it made sense for the Council to try and change the pattern of behaviour by closing the junction and giving parents a reason to revisit their behaviour/ get their kids walking and cycling to school - and with roads quieter than usual during the pandemic, this was a one-off opportunity to try and change people's commuting habits. The schools are now reporting an increase in students walking and cycling to school, so the measures have had some success in driving desirable behaviour.

Haven?t seen any yet and we usually get a few. Will report if I see any.

Haven?t been on this thread recently as life (and the wet weather) have got in the way, just popped in to say heartblock, please don?t leave the debate. Ab29, heartened that you agree with me on some things and not others, that?s as it should be. Less tribalism and entrenched positions, more getting to yes. Perhaps we should have a school-like experiment where we all spend a day arguing the other side?s position? In theory a good thing but I imagine it would descend into sarcasm and weak spoof-Twitter-account type humour within 5 mins. A pity.

My Southwark Life magazine just arrived. Pretty much every article / paragraph has a link to the specific related webpage on the Southwark site. Except the para about the Streetspace reviews. Which is written in a way that suggests public feedback is something that is going to happen in the future, with no mention of the specific Dulwich review or the deadline for comments. Seems like the council is really keen to engage. Not. Pic attached.