legalalien

Thanks. I had a poster up briefly, then read it properly / heard and realised some people were offended, so have taken it down pending a new poster. I think your crossing out suggestion was measured/ sensible and in fact the crossing out and displaying sends a message in itself (If I can find the poster in the recycling I might do that). My response was in light of the fact that OneDulwich have apologised and are getting new / replacement posters done. I get what you?re saying about my point re Lowlander but I do think sometimes we should give people a bit of a chance before putting them in a bucket and making a blanket judgment about the validity of their views on all things. I might be over-extrapolating! And 100% that everyone should be free to make their own judgment. ED_girl123 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Legalalien I completely agree that it shouldn't be > us and them, hence why I offered that maybe people > could consider crossing that one line out. That > being said, if people feel hurt or offended, they > are fully within their right to step away and > withdraw support. I don't think Lowlander proved > your point in that sense. There is freedom of > speech, freedom of actions, but that does not mean > freedom from consequences.

Lowlander you?ve kind of made my point. I find it easy to disagree with people on some things and agree with them others, taking a position on things on an issue by issue basis. Everything seems so tribal these days, kind of ?people like me have x set of views?, rather than a more pick and mix approach.

I saw a statement on Twitter acknowledging offence had been caused and saying they were changing the posters (see attached). The tone deafness or otherwise is a separate debate (fine to have obvs) from the issue of road closures. I do think, though, that as a general principle it?s good to allow people space to reconsider and adjust their behaviour, rather than continuing the politics of division with everyone finding more and more reasons to demonise those who disagree with them on a particular issue (not to detract from your original concern, OP - I?m not suggesting you were doing that). We ought to be able to separate out issues we are debating from other issues without turning everything into ?us? and ?them?. (ETA I say this because Twitter is full of ?inappropriate posters therefore bad people therefore bad views on everything? talk. ED-girl didn?t say anything like that so just adding for context) Otherwise how can anyone learn/ change / develop their views?

Sheila, there isn?t another option, it?s that the road is completely closed to vehicles other than buses and bikes in one direction on weekdays 8-10 and 3-6. There are signs to this effect, people have mixed views on the quality of the signage as a large number of fines have been handed out. There?s another quite long thread on this.

Also looks as though they are doing some further tweaks to the experimental arrangement in the north of the borough and to one of the ones being sponsored by guys and st Thomas?. https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/38728/GSTTC-Brunswick-Phase-2-notice-dated-29-April-2021-.pdf https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/38027/Southwark-Bridge-Road-phase-4-notice-dated-22-April-2021-.pdf Basically making tweaks to address issues, as ex-Dulwicher suggests the process should work. It just doesn?t seem to apply to the Dulwich schemes. Not sure whether that?s down to input (positive or negative) or lack of input by local councillors compared to other areas, or something else.

Hmm, traffic orders used to be listed in the decision notices in the council and democracy section of the website but looks like that may have changed. Will read through the recent ones. There?s a school street / timed closures relating to Heber School https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/38026/Schools-Spring-trial-notice-dated-22-April-21-.pdf

Ex Dulwicher I agree with you. I?ve never suggested ripping all LTNs out I don?t think. But I think the Dulwich closures have been poorly thought through in the context of the local area, don?t meet the success factors you mention. I?d love this discussion to go in the direction of discussing changes that might make things work better and avoid it at least reduce the time periods of traffic chaos on boundary roads. Where we probably disagree is that I think we should reverse / amend the existing closures while we agree on the alternative, as it?s not OK for the boundary road residents to choke while we try and find a workable compromise. The other problem is that I think an amended scheme would require removal of the hard / all day closure at Court Lane / Calton, and I?m not sure that?s open for discussion by some of those on here who support the existing scheme. I?d be pleased to be corrected on that.

Some here aren't obsessed with LTNs as "the enemy" and don't have a driving licence. I'd just like an answer to the question of whether, IF it can be shown to be true that there is a significant increase in congestion and pollution being caused on local boundary roads, and that this is being caused by the new traffic restrictions, those supporting the Dulwich scheme think that is a price worth paying in the interests of fixing the overall problem of too many cars on the road. Noone seems to want to answer that. The problems in the way Southwark council and its councillors operate is a bigger issue and something I have concerns about independently of the LTN thing, the more I read about.

Raeburn I don?t understand why you can hold the ideas of it being unfair but still OK in your head at the same time. I assume you think magic fairies will swoop in and solve main road problems in a flash. But there?s no plan for that to happen, and the residents of boundary roads have been suffering for months with no end in sight. Meanwhile a thought from Edmund Burke ?Whilst men are linked together, they easily and speedily communicate the alarm of any evil design. They are enabled to fathom it with common counsel, and to oppose it with united strength. Whereas, when they lie dispersed, without concert, order, or discipline, communication is uncertain, counsel difficult, and resistance impracticable. Where men are not acquainted with each other?s principles, nor experienced in each other?s talents, nor at all practised in their mutual habitudes and dispositions by joint efforts in business; no personal confidence, no friendship, no common interest, subsisting among them; it is evidently impossible that they can act a public part with uniformity, perseverance, or efficacy. In a connection, the most inconsiderable man, by adding to the weight of the whole, has his value, and his use; out of it, the greatest talents are wholly unserviceable to the public. No man, who is not inflamed by vain-glory into enthusiasm, can flatter himself that his single, unsupported, desultory, unsystematic endeavours, are of power to defeat the subtle designs and united cabals of ambitious citizens. When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle. ?Edmund Burke, Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents 82-83 (1770) in: Select Works of Edmund Burke, vol. 1, p. 146 (Liberty Fund ed. 1999).?

And here you have it. Repeat after me: EDG and LL are residential streets. Raeburn Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But Rockets, you haven't been clear about what > you're actually asking - I haven't been avoiding > it, just didn't understand what you wanted. > > ATM, honestly, I have no idea - I occasionally > used those routes over the years, but would > actively avoid EDG if I could due to the fast and > unpleasant traffic. I've not been down them over > the last year at rush hours, so honestly can't > say? Same goes for LL - no idea. It's always > seemed jammed/congested - or traffic speeding when > it is clear at night - so has been unattractive > for years. would prefer to take the residential > streets and avoid where I could between Goose > Green and Forest Hill. No idea if this is > up/down/same, honest answer. > > I can say for a fact that traffic and pollution > has been bad for years, and that average vehicle > size is notably bigger. > > > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > But you do realise, don?t you, that the traffic > on > > these roads has increased massively since the > > closures went in as a direct consequence of > them? > > Simple question??do you think that is > acceptable > > as part of the bigger goal? From your refusal > to > > answer the question I may suspect the answer is > > yes?;-)

We all keep going around the houses but I think it inevitably comes back to the question of collateral damage: do the ends justify the means? The lack of proper data quantifying the damage is making the debate more complicated to have, as those supporting the experimental scheme claim that it's minimal, and those opposing it claim that it's not. So perhaps we should argue on the basis of some assumptions : Q for those opposing the current scheme: if hard data showed that the impact on traffic levels on the boundary roads were minimal/ there is no significant increase in harmful pollution on boundary roads/ public transport can still run effectively/ emergency services can get to people on time - would you then accept that the current scheme is OK? Q for those in favour of the current scheme: if hard data showed that the impact on traffic levels on the boundary roads is significant/ there is a significant increase in harmful pollution on boundary roads/ there are delays to bus routes and emergency services - would you then accept that the current scheme is OK? From the debate on here, I think most answers to the first question would be yes (because contrary to assertions, the opponents aren't a bunch of local SUV drivers who object to a 5 minute detour), and also most answers to the second question would be yes. I have yet to see a single supporter of the Dulwich LTN say that if, in fact, boundary roads are massively adversely affected, then something has to change. Instead it is all "well, less cars needed". I understand the idea but fails to take account of the reality/ victims on the ground, and I think that's why the two sides will continue to differ - unless the evaporation actually happens sometime soon.

An idle thought: if those most responsible for the traffic are rich stay at home parents in overpowered SUVs ferrying Tarquin and Jemima to and from local prep schools - is there any reason to believe that an inconvenient delay is going to cause them to stop doing so? If they?re that selfish they are not going to be bothered about holding up buses / poisoning main road residents/ forcing tradespeople out of the area; it?s perfectly nice inside the SUV, hands free mobile, back seat DVDs or an opportunity for some homework... I don?t think this will work to make that traffic evaporate. Went past the Burbage Roundabout this afternoon and the kind man stopping people from inadvertently driving through the bus gates was there doing his great work. Of the four cars I saw him stop, all were elderly couples in very reasonably priced cars (not statistically meaningful, I know, just what I saw.)

I?ve emailed the constitutional team email address, let?s see. I am bloody minded enough to check frequently to see what is going on. You?ll see from my other thread that there?s a Peckham / Nunhead ward meeting to discuss low traffic in Nunhead, next week (online) which was advertised on the Peckham and Nunhead Facebook page but doesn?t seem to have made it into the main Southwark calendar.

On a similar note, the Council seem to have unilaterally disabled the "update" service on their Council and Democracy website. I've suddenly stopped receiving updates, and when I try to resubscribe I get an error message with the ominous word "Forbidden". Ironic. dulwichfolk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As with all these things most that are affected > don?t have time to search out all the websites > they should be sticking pins into. > > The council seem to be happy with that and only > wish to hear from one demographic whatever they > may say about inclusion etc....

I don?t have a licence. I?m not sure why you are suggesting I find an SUV and get some driving lessons - unless you think I could help create traffic on the main roads, to assist with the LTN / car reduction experiment?

I voted for the Count (the entreaty for supporters to put their bins on the pavement at least once in the last week as a show of support did it for me). Was just pondering the significance of his standing for the Count Binface Party rather than as an independent - and after a quick google in turns out the CBP is registered to an address in Forest Hill. So practically a local candidate.

This month?s update of the Forward Plan has now been published, a number of new upcoming decisions listed including a decision on participation in a 12 month pan-London scooter trial https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50026086&PlanId=669 Also one on ?Formalising Council constitutional and decision making processes to incorporate the Climate Emergency priority and the recognition of wider health and socio-economic inequalities in Southwark? https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50026163&PlanId=669 Those decisions due in June. Also a decision due in July on a Climate Change Action Plan, which is listed as a major decision with a value of ?500k plus (so a cabinet decision). Looks as though the closure of undersubscribed schools in the north of the borough is starting, as there?s a decision notice about the closure of St John?s Walworth listed for July. Decision on extension of CPZ in North East Peckham due in August https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50026103&PlanId=669

Agree. The issue of policing language is a whole new thread. Let's keep this one to allocation of road/ lane/ avenue / crescent / square / grove / streetspace and associated active travel / public transport/ transport policy/ air quality issues. Plenty to keep us all occupied. * *although as someone who favours not policing language/ speech, far be it from me to tell people what they can post and where. Conflicted :)

Interesting use of "promote". Perhaps "raise awareness of" might have been a more politic choice of words.

He is a coopted member of the Environmental Scrutiny Commission and the chair of London Living Streets, inter alia https://lrscconference.org.uk/index.php/agenda-speakers/jeremy-leach-co-founder-action-vision-zero/. Seems to be driving a lot of the policy tbh and has been engaged in it with the council for a while https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=13101. Involved in something called the southwark Walking Joint Steering Group, which if you google the minutes, seems to be driving a fair part of the policy agenda. And historically also involved in running Southwark Cyclists (eg https://southwarkcyclists.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/20140328_CJSG_Minutes_published.pdf)

Siduhe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > At @legalalien, I have a FOI request out with the > council about the "draft" CPZ plan and related > communications that has just been rejected. I > will be appealing... Yell if you need a hand trawling through the ICO guidance for the relevant references etc.

For anyone with an interest in parking or the way the council is going about things, would highly recommend watching this meeting, especially from about 1:00 to 1:15. Discussion of Jeremy's "Recommendation 15", which, although we don't get to see the wording (it's in the chat), seems to be a souped up version of a previous recommendation about a policy for emissions based parking charges, that Jeremy wants to specifically refer to diesel vehicles, among other things. Cllr Hamvas seems to have pointed out on chat that diesel owners are already hit by ULEZ, and Cllr Morris goes into bat for existing diesel owners who are already being hit by ULEZ and increased congestion charge - is it fair for them to pay an increased parking charge as well, given that many of the owners concerned are some of the more disadvantaged residents. (those who can pay, will pay - and is this fair?". Cllr Morris also asks about whether the council has considered things like app based on demand buses in the more "rural" parts of the borough, like Dulwich. (this doesn't get put in the recommendations but there is a suggestion it should be followed up with officers). Jeremy is really worried that his plan for diesel charging will fall off the radar. Cllr Newens raises the idea that charges should be based on size of vehicles (SUVs bad) and that there should be a recommendation to that effect. Cllr Ochere - cementing his place as my favourite LC, points out that the Commission really shouldn't be making up recommendations without some sort of evidence base. Ongoing discussion, some on chat which we can't see. Jeremy doesn't want his recommendation softened, it seems. It is based on a recommendation last year, so consensus ends up to repeat the previous recommendation about the need for emissions based parking charges and the idea that a range of stated factors should be considered in formulating the policy, which will be considered and come back for formal recommendation in the next municipal year. Now to watch the final read through of the recommendations...

The "main road" thing is fairly subjective though. Court Lane is a classified road (not a "back street") and shut completely. But it's an interesting point: the council is prepared to force LL, EDG and Croxted to endure massive congestion while we see whether and how traffic will adjust; but not prepared to subject DV, Turney and Burbage to the same type of experiment (even though they would have experienced less than LL, EDG and Croxted do now, as more routes would have been open. Is this down to traffic modelling or political considerations (genuine question - was there traffic modelling that couldn't be ignored, for example)? RRR would you support reversing the Phase 2 closures in the Village and then seeing if the CA/CL junction closure is sustainable as a stand alone, on an experimental basis?

Just sat down to watch last night's Environment Scrutiny Commission meeting. The first bit is missing, but the discussion of the Air Quality Report part 2 starts around 15:25. Just watched not-a-councillor Jeremy Leach give his comments on the report, from about 17:00. Horrified at the reference to "60s type visions" and successfully demands that be taken out. Puts a couple of paragraphs of suggested wording he'd like to be in the report "in the chat" for councillors to consider (given this is a public meeting, should the wording not be disclosed to the public? This is something I've wondered about before in terms of the sidebar chat function for these online meetings). And interestingly, at about 20:30 expresses his consider that the implementation of potential new changes to the structure of residential parking is not coming forward in the way "we've been promised it would do". Who has been promised what? Living Streets? Is this an indication that the original "parking document" with the firm dates for roll out of the CPZ borough wide was in fact a real plan, rather than a mistake that was then replaced with a more wishy-washy document? ETA: Cllr Ochere has the patience of a saint and remains my favourite Labour councillor. Cllr Werner suggested that the council do some long-term health monitoring about the impact of the LTNs on respiratory health. She had in mind the beneficial impact caused by less pollution. Cllr Ochere suggests a key purpose would be the impact of those attending schools on main roads. A general statement going in about the importance of monitoring the impact on health outcomes. Cllr Hamvas makes a useful point about the importance of good PTAL and ensuring bus routes serve schools properly eg don't stop 3 stops before the terminal stop near the school. Cllr Morris (LD) makes some interesting observations about the need to monitor impacts of policies on car ownership rather than just trips. Apparently in the Borough area the council sell more parking permits than there are parking spaces! Will update when have watched the rest....

I think the restrictions on Dulwich Village are to prevent the serious traffic impact that the CA/CL closure would have on DV, creating a permanent traffic jam past the shops and schools. And then closing DV meant that displaced traffic would be likely to go down Burbage and Turney - and some of those living there and involved in the consultation didn't like that idea, so they closed them as well, and diverted the traffic to Croxted Road. One thing led to another... which is why I think the permanent /all day closure of CA/CL is a critical part of the problem. I'm guessing but I imagine that the time periods chosen correspond to the modelled time periods of problems with displaced traffic. They haven't been chosen to enable active travel to schools - were that the case they could be much shorter and wouldn't be needed in school holidays? On a related note to Poppy, I spoke to a guy from a sports charity this morning who said they are having to look at reducing the number of sessions that they run as it's now impossible for their staff to meet their coaching schedules. So ironically, for an active travel initiative, less physical activity for a number of children in some of the less well-heeled schools about the place who don't have full-time PE staff.