legalalien

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.

I was going to move it somewhere but when I went back outside it had gone! I think it sensed my intentions and disappeared into a rotting sleeper (along with all the stag beetle larvae that I think live in there). ETA slightly better pic. It is quite attractive, for a slug.

There is a horrible giant orange slug in my garden - have seen some big ones but not one like this (pic attached). Should I be worried?

It was in my group but sounds as though it varied between groups.

Today?s meeting was interesting. They didn?t record it.

I tuned in to see what all the fuss was about. It has the look and feel of a regional news programme, rather than some sort of ?shock jock? thing, from what I saw, but perhaps that?s the point? Something that screams non-establishment, non-metro elite?

Yep 100%. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > One thing I think everyone can probably agree on, > is that the lack of data / baselining and ongoing > monitoring is extremely unhelpful.

Just seen on Twitter that Southwark Cyclists are advising their followers to respond to the consultation in ways that include advocating for a modal filter in Red Post Hill. Really hoping all these plans involve a new hospital somewhere as this is a key route to Kings for staff/ anyone not in an ambulance. It?s bad enough with the timed closures on DV. Can it not be ALL about cycle routes? ETA I do wonder if this links into the email exchanges back in November when Southwark sprang the Phase 2 closures on TfL. Just checked back and it was during a telephone discussion about Red Post Hill that TfL seems to have expressed concern that Southwark had neglected to tell TfL that the closures were going in (notice given on Thursday for Monday implementation). See attached.

Have just received the message below. Seems the provision of data is being delayed. Love the last part with the assertion that the process is robust, fair and inclusive. We?ll see. (As my grandfather used to say, self-praise is no recommendation). Dear all Thank you for registering to attend the Dulwich Community Meeting this Saturday at 2pm. The link to access this meeting is https://zoom.us/j/93950973013 Meeting ID: 939 5097 3013 Passcode: 364163 Please note: It had been our intention to have a section of Saturday?s meeting to consider initial data reports to inform the discussion as progression from our earlier meetings. Feedback from our previous meetings made clear people wanted to have more time to share their experiences of the measures across the wider Dulwich area and to discuss areas of concern. There was also a need to have meaningful comparative data shared and explained. Being able to meet both those requests in one public meeting in a constructive way would be unlikely. Therefore our sharing of important data, to help inform residents and ensure a constructive discussion, is being amended to allow for two additional data specific meetings that will be focused on both the outcome of Saturday?s meeting and feedback from our earlier sessions. This will allow proper time, across all meetings for opinions and experiences to be shared from our estates, streets and roads within and outside the Dulwich trial area. Details of these additional meetings will be given shortly and you will be able to register for these events in advance. The format of Saturday?s meeting will be different to the previous ones we have held. After an initial presentation giving the background to the Dulwich Review and the Streetspace measures, we will be bringing people into a number of ?breakout rooms? where we hope to have more in-depth discussion of people?s concerns and suggestions. Themes to discuss will be:- 1. What aims should we have for highways measures in the Dulwich area? 2. In what ways have the existing schemes worked / not worked? 3. Going forward, how do we develop the roads in Dulwich to achieve our aims and create a healthier future for the whole Dulwich area. Saturday remains an opportunity for you to hear about the purpose and objectives of traffic measures; the process we are undertaking to monitor and evaluate the success of them against those objectives and it also provides more time to share your views and to work towards some constructive ways forward. The additional new sessions specifically informed by data and the feedback so far, will provide even more opportunity to have your voice heard. This review process is robust, fair and inclusive. Kind regards, Southwark Highways

I agree with the measures you suggest northernmonkey. It would also be interesting to know whether the survey figures reflect those who always cycle etc, or those who mostly cycle etc. If those saying they are cycling etc are only cycling and so on 60% of the time, that?s a lot more car journeys than the figures would suggest. I?d be surprised if there weren?t a fair few people using active transport on days when it?s sunny and they don?t have lots of kit to drag along or an after school activity further away, or on days when a parent is working from home, but driving on the days when that isn?t the case / the parent needs to go on to somewhere else.

love this. the dinosaur situation is a bit concerning.

In fact one of the judges has just suggested that it is common ground that an EqIA assessment would have to be done at a borough level for a specific scheme. Eg for a particular traffic order. (The discussion is whether the quality of that assessment would be any different had the TfL guidance been any clearer on the point).

Watching today?s court of appeal proceedings (on delayed viewing). Interesting discussion of whether or not TfL?s general guidance should have been subject to an EqIA (which would by its nature be very general, one judge suggesting that it makes sense for the assessment to happen at a much more granular level). Has suggested that requiring the guidance to signpost the need for boroughs to carry out an EqIA would be infantilising the authorities to which it was directed. (If only he knew that some authorities didn?t actually bother with granular, street by street specific EqIAs). Doesn?t feel like this is going well for the taxis - but even if that is the case there is the potential for some passages in the judgment that push more responsibilities down to the local authorities. (planning to watch more later)

You can watch today's Court of Appeal proceedings in the taxi driver v TfL case (about the Bishopsgate no-taxi bus lanes) on youtube if you are keen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4b1edR4pns&t=5838s It's not the most exciting watch ever. TfL barrister was good, just started watching UTAG chap. Seems to have got off to quite a shaky start. ETA is warming up now (about two hours into the second clip) Not actually saying TfL acted in bad faith, but they did have ?an ambition? that the plans should become permanent. One judge a bit concerned that original judgment went off on a bit of a tangent from the grounds pleaded, with findings of bad faith.. ?Mr Monk was never called and it was never put to him that he was a lying toerag?? On a different note, proceedings don?t exactly scream "diversity in the legal profession", I have to say. Edited again to add- if anyone out there is geeky enough to watch, gets interesting around 2:11 into the second session. Some concern about first instance judge effectively finding bad faith when that wasn?t pleaded at first instance and evidence wasn?t given on that point as a result. Very technical area of law. Get the feeling that they may allow the temporary Bishopsgate order on the narrow basis that it is temporary and will fall away, and won?t agree to the quashing of the general guidance to boroughs on the basis that bad faith wasn?t pleaded and the judge at first instance didn?t have enough evidence of a TfL ?Trojan horse to get LTNs through? theory. Not my area but just trying to read the judges?)