legalalien

yes, everyone looked pretty uncomfortable about that 51 out of 170 figure. He did say that there might be some variation in what was being reported, I think? But this is a pretty substantial proportion of the overall number. slarti b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @legalalien > A good set of notes and I completely agree with > your view that councillors are showing much more > concern about the impact of road closures on > surrounding streets. > > A couple of points on the comments by Darren from > London Ambulance Service. > - I think he said average response times (across > London?) had increased from 14 to 16 minutes > since traffic measures put in, though this may be > down to fewer cars on road as fewer people are > using public transport. > > - He also said they have recorded 170 incidents > across all London boroughs where traffic measures > had caused delays that had adversely impacted the > patient. Of those 51 were in Southwark, if so > that is very worrying. He said Islington, where > they have camera controlled closures, had only > 1(one) such incident.

Also an interesting presentation by TfL/ GLA on ULEZ and related transport policy.

Watching last night?s Environment Scrutiny Commission on catch up. So far - sounds like quite a few members of the public dialled in , the chair did a good job of explaining the point of Commission meetings. Big fan of Cllr Ochere in the chair. - there is a firm plan to exempt blue badge holders, just subject to ward councillors receiving advance note of the public comms. (Presumably this can only apply to camera controlled closures - that wasn?t expressly stated. As I understand it each blue badge holder will be able to nominate a vehicle - doesn?t have to be their own) - discussion with ambulance guy. Comms with council now fortnightly and going well. Wasn?t great at start when all schemes went in at once (not just a Southwark related problem). Discussions need to be more linked up with TfL and neighbouring boroughs going forward. He comes on again to express a clear preference for cameras rather than planters and points out the emergency responders are broader than what people might think eg network of people who jump in their car and bring a defibrillator, and that the impact of schemes on nurses, social carers, people travelling by car to cancer appointments etc also need to be considered - good question from one of the councillors about the need for robust data and the fact that talking in percentages is unhelpful eg a small reduction in traffic on a quiet road gives a big percentage, a much larger increase in traffic on a busy road can give a small percentage. Requested that council make relevant data available to public as ?open data? - Cllr Morris suggests that too much was done too soon and that council officers have basically been swamped as a result. May need to bring in more resource to deal with monitoring and engagement (aim for ?calmer streets and calmer residents?). Some acknowledgement about workload. Unrelated, mentioned that there?s a new director of environment appointed 8 days ago Cllr Newens asked for an update on timetable for review/ consultation and didn?t get one (but there is significant comms work being done - lots of talk about equality and SST policy. Cllr Burgess mentions that pollution on main roads should be a Labour concern, mentions PSED and the need to include colleagues from public health in the assessment/ make sure there is robust data around health impact - some mention of data collection. If I heard it correctly it sounded like the air pollution measurement would rely on the existing air monitoring infrastructure in conjunction with modelling. -Cllr Hamvas makes the point that channeling traffic onto main roads has a negative impact on those attending / travelling to schools on main roads. Cllr Rose makes a brief mention about green screening (later described by Cllr Burgess as a ?sticking plaster?, while describing one of her main road schools as having high levels of FSM and ESL - Cllr Rose makes some mention of the ?next generation of school streets? (this didn?t sound like something already in the planning stage) Cllr Neale still asking for the parking info (should I send him a copy?), and Cllr Burgess mentions the need to start talking about alternative kerbside uses (I think she gave removing on street parking from one side of roads as an example) Cllr Burgess mentions Climate Emergency strategy and acknowledges the schemes will be counterproductive if increased journey miles etc result in a net increase in pollution/ emissions - need to do some sort of ?climate change calculation? I would make a rubbish stenographer. Best to watch online if interested enough! But hopefully gives people a flavour.

Was only half-listening, but there was a lengthy discussion about this at this morning's Cabinet meeting, apparently the consultation on the original rules was the most responded to consultation ever. If anyone is really interested they will be able to watch the meeting back on the Southwark youtube channel.

I suspect we?re not going to get a really accurate picture until everyone is allowed to return to workplaces. There will be some who feel they can do the school run with active travel while working from home but can?t / don?t feel they can once a commute to work is factored in.

Update on today?s cabinet meeting, Cabinet received 24 questions from members of the public and has provided written responses to all questions, no supplementary questions were allowed at the meeting due to number involved and not wanting to unfairly prioritise some questions over others. Questions largely related to review of street space measures in Dulwich - those involved can be involved in the review process as it launches in coming days and weeks. The two deputation requests on the review of low traffic measures were refused, on the basis that those concerned will have a chance to participate in the review process in a number of ways, eg meetings with cabinet members, formal consultations. ETA clearly some discussion in the chat function by those unhappy not to be allowed to speak, subsequent commentary from Cllr Williams re point of deputations being to make Cabinet aware issues exist - and that everyone able to have their voice heard in the review process. Sent from my iPhone

Just wondering whether an increase in CPZ income might be factored into next year's budget - indeed it is, ?422K which I think is increased income including through further roll out across the borough this year - see page 17 of the PDF - Appendix C. Am wondering where parking/ traffic fines are factored in but have yet to find that. Long time since I studied accounting at school. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/g6774/Public%20reports%20pack%20Wednesday%2024-Feb-2021%2019.00%20Council%20Assembly.pdf?T=10 ETA - there is a random ?210k "uplift in fees and charges" from Environment and Leisure, plus garden waste bin collection going up by ?10 a year. EATA: looking at the equality section in the budget document as it deals with CPZ - says "The movement plan Equality Analysis has been presented and identifies a positive impact.". Interesting to see whether a general equality analysis of the Movement Plan, as opposed to an equality assessment of specific actions, holds up in light of the TfL/taxi case (which is on appeal at present). But more significantly, just goes to show how entrenched the idea of the CPZ roll out is. Presumably these figures relate to the schemes currently consulted on, would be interesting to know whether they include figures for the Bermondsey area on which the council has been forced to re-consult.

I don?t think people are going to disagree on this thread - they just don?t think the particular configuration of closures in this area are an acceptable tool to encourage people to drive less, because of the collateral damage. I?m not going to drive less, though, as I don?t have a licence and don?t drive :) SE22_2020er Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've had a brilliant idea to solve the problem. > DRIVE LESS!!!! > > I think the one thing that everyone agrees on this > thread is that there is too much pollution caused > by people driving. No-one has said that they > want to see more cars on the road. Or have I > missed those posts? > > So, what you should be doing fellow posters is > focussing on the root cause of the problem which > is too many people driving and not enough people > using public transport and active transport > (walking and cycling). > > Am I the only one who is keeping their fingers > crossed that we will get the congestion charge > implemented soon so that people who pollute are > financially penalised for their pollution?

I think that figure of 41 may be the number of current residents' permits on estates in the ward, rather than what they have planned (the stated purpose of the report is to quantify present parking provision in order to support the previous recommendation by the Council's Air Quality Commission that "parking space is treated as a public amenity and reduced over time"). These figures are the baseline they are starting from, as I read it.

I?ll post any other documents I spot about the roll out of the CPZ to the southern wards here. Looks like it is definitely happening, the decision on implementation for the Nunhead /Queens Road area has recently been added to the forward plan - decision due in October with statutory consultation thereafter. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50025506&PlanId=665 Looking again at the council document I posted yesterday, I?m not sure why some areas get ?public engagement? before statutory consultation (Rotherhithe and Surrey Docks, Dulwich Village), while the rest don?t. The Rotherhithe / Surrey Docks engagement exercise has already happened, and it might be difficult not to mention CPZ when engaging on LTN issues in DV, so perhaps it is a general change in policy, not to engage pre-statutory consultation? Don?t know.

I have posted some photos of the original document on the "streets info" thread if anyone wants to read it.

CPZ roll out attachments part 2.

Council briefing on CPZ roll out: although this has been taken down off the website, the good news is that I printed a copy. The bad news is that I printed it in black and white on my elderly printer, so the quality isn't perfect and you can't see the nice magenta colour of the "to be confirmed" zone that is a chunk of East Dulwich.

Interesting TfL FoI request I just spotted which seems to confirm my earlier FOI request that TfL were only told about the Phase 2 DV changes after they had been implemented (the orders were made 15 Oct and came into force 22 Oct). Seems like there is some monitoring of bus times etc going on. https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-of-information/foi-request-detail?referenceId=FOI-2248-2021

That parking document seems to have disappeared off the Southwark website, when I try the link I posted originally, I get a log in box. Presumably it wasn't meant to be made public? Well done Siduhe for posting the timetable above... I'm guessing one of the sensitivities is that it had a detailed breakdown of parking spaces on council estates and the plans to introduce paid parking there... ETA or cynically, perhaps we weren't supposed to be told about the ones that are scheduled for after the next set of council elections...

Upcoming meetings: (i)LTN related deputation requests at Tuesday morning's cabinet meeting, from Dulwich Alliance and from a group representing Lordship Lane residents and businesses http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/b50012748/Supplemental%20Agenda%20No.%201%20Tuesday%2009-Mar-2021%2011.00%20Cabinet.pdf?T=9 (ii) Environment Scrutiny Committee meeting on Tuesday evening focusing on LTNs, including briefings from council officers and an interview with Cllr Rose, also a presentation from GLA/TfL about the ULEZ I http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=517&MId=6745 ETA a discussion about parking is also on the agenda, there was a background document on this that seems to have been taken down, but a pic of the draft timetable for CPZ roll out to various areas over the next couple of years has been posted on the East Dulwich CPZ thread if anyone wants to see it.

It's all very well to say "give it more time". I think it's uncontroversial that the experiment results in - in fact REQUIRES, a significant adverse effect on denizens and users (drivers and passengers in private and public transport, cyclists and pedestrians) of a number of roads, caused by congestion. If there is no congestion in the early stages, that suggests that there is no problem that requires the LTN solution - and without congestion there is unlikely to be much modal shift. The question is, how much harm should we allow to be done, and for what period of time, and I haven't heard anyone attempt to quantify that yet. Slightly increased traffic on the boundary roads for six months - maybe? Gridlock for five or six hours a day for a year - no? This is an area- specific experiment, there's not much data out there and it seems to me that no-one has a clear idea of whether or when the potential traffic evaporation might happen. So let's have an honest discussion about how much "collateral damage" those who want to continue the experiment are happy to inflict. I still have a problem with an experiment that says "lets inflict lots of noise and potentially illegal levels of air pollution on Group A to see whether we can get people who are largely in another group, Group B, to change their behaviour". It doesn't sit right.

So here?s the challenge. I don?t think we can rely on a comprehensive monitoring programme from the council / TfL that will cover all the displacement roads once traffic starts to pick up, as we all agree it will (if it?s not going to then there would be no need for the closures). How do we try and capture what happens in a sensible way that doesn?t involve those who support or those who are against the closures taking snapshots of bits of road and posting them here or on social media (whether to show cyclists / pedestrians/ traffic).

So - let?s accept that people in the same situation as you could, with a bit of effort, go car free. People like me have always been car free. Of the other people traversing roads in Dulwich, there are some who could reduce their car journeys a bit and some who could not. The original analysis of the traffic flows suggested most traffic was through traffic which, given lack of public transport, suggests quite a bit falls into the ?could not? category. But then again, a fair bit of the through traffic may be delivery drivers delivering stuff to the people who are car free or reducing their car use. If the latter were really committed they?d try to reduce their deliveries but there is no concurrent stick / carrot to try and make that behavioural change. If you never have anything delivered then kudos - I do have groceries delivered as I don?t drive. Whether people can or are willing to change their behaviour once lockdown ends remains to be seen - but I come back to the point - how much pain is it acceptable to inflict on the boundary roads while we find out whether the modal shift will happen? I think this is what it comes down to really. If there wasn?t massive congestion and a problem people would be willing to put up with inconvenience for a bit to see if the experiment would work. Otto2 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "to make the point that even the most ardent > supporter of model shift and LTNs still has reason > to own a car and many people who own a car do so > because they have to - some just have many more > reasons to use it than others." > > > We gave up our car (actually, carS!) when our > children were quite young - as a trial at first. > It seemed really daunting. I had lived a car-free > life previously in a city where car ownership was > fairly impossible. Back then, I did not have the > additional transport burden of two tiny children. > But, it was much easier than I thought it would > be. > > I have seen a massive increase in people walking > and cycling. Yes, we are in a lockdown, but, many > people have made a shift I bet they will stick > with. Would this have happened without LTN's? > Probably not - it is easy to just jump in a car > and people do not do change so eagerly when it is > convenient for them not to. > > We'll need more of lots of things > infrastructure-wise to reduce car dependency but > beginning to shift behaviour seems like the hard > part to me.

Please Malumbu. You've hinted at your expertise loads of times. I still don't have a driving licence and the constant "most of you are rubbish drivers" "inconvenience for drivers" theme is exactly the kind of thing we have been trying to get away from in the last half a day., which I was starting to feel was quite positive (And on a similar note, maybe we could move away from "cyclists this, cyclists that"). Can we not recognise that it is not pleasant/safe for people to have massive levels of congestion/ traffic fumes outside their houses on particular streets, or pleasant/safe for those who have no choice but to drive on those streets or be bus passengers on those streets? I choose to see the small picture and think that it is as important as the big picture, so perhaps that is where we differ.

heartblock - I completely agree with you, others might not and in the absence of localised data will argue on the basis of the generic reports being produced by Rachel Aldred etc (which people have different views on in terms of independence, but we can agree to differ on that, I think,if we focus on the specifics of this scheme). What I think we need to agree on is a way of getting actual data, both quantitative and (as we can't afford to put equipment everywhere) qualitative to some extent. And I say again - we need to have some sort of "maximum temporary negative effect" measure which means the experiment has to be halted or adjusted. I think. If we could agree on the principle of that they we could move on to where that line should be drawn...

Pengun you are right and that is why I just edited my post above. I think a lot of the aggression and frustration here is directed at the Council and the process as much as it is at the substance of the measures. If those in favour of the measures could go some way to acknowledging the process flaws without compromising their view on the substance of the measures, and those against the measures could (as I think Rockets has done) acknowledge more expressly that not every measure aimed at car reduction is a bad thing, then perhaps we are a bit closer together?

DC it's the last point I don't agree with, as it will make life on the boundary roads unbearable. Given the initial OHS analysis was that the main problem in Dulwich was lots of through trafffic, I'd expect any evaporation caused by modal shift for short journeys to be less than the most optimistic expert evidence predicts. That through traffic is quite unlikely to evaporate, do you not think? So again - how bad, and for how long, are you prepared for the situation on the boundary roads to be, before acknowledging that something needs to change? I guess how open are those in support of the measures to an adjustment to the scheme (for example eg opening Court Lane but keeping Calton and some of the more minor roads filtered, or by changng the times of the timed restrictions). Is the idea of adjustment to alleviate the boundary road problems acceptable - or is the existing arrangement set in stone? It would be good to get a feel for people's views. ETA For the record, I still have lots of problems with the way Southwark seem to be acting, not least with what appears to be a lack of compliance with the statutory notification processes, a lack of transparency, over-reliance on lobby groups in policy formation and a less than impressive FOIA/ EIR or public sector equality duty situation, but it may make this discussion more productive if we can hive that off as a separate issue. I think those are the things that tend to make those of us on here opposing the measures emotive - and of course they are things that are not irrelevant to the legality of the current arrangements).

I agree with Rockets, Bicknell and Siduhe (half my family come from unprogressive Bromley so that may not be perceived as a good thing). The problem is the way that this experiment has been carried out - I'm not keen on a "live" experiment that dumps large amounts of traffic, causing congestion and pollution on the boundary roads in the hope that some of it will evaporate, based on what seems to be quite sketchy data in relation to the potential effect in this particular local area. But if it is decided to do the experiment, then I don't think it's unreasonable for it to be properly planned in advance, in terms of collecting baseline data, and putting proper monitoring in before you start (which is what the Guys and St Thomas' arrangements seem to be doing), and deciding what "success" looks like - and also when the "bad" effect is sufficiently bad that you either need to stop the experiment and have a re-think, or amend things and see what happens, again with proper, transparent monitoring. Could we agree that this is what would happen in an ideal world? Because then the argument becomes more about how we fix the current mess. And it would also be interesting to try and agree how bad "too bad" is for the boundary roads, as I think we will find out in the not-too-distant future. Do those who support the current Dulwich closures accept that there is a point at which the scheme would have to be amended, or not?

I'm not actually sure it's about the cash (although that must help). Perhaps I'm naive, but I think it's a response to a top down policy about Climate Emergency/ Climate Change. The Council wanted to make a big statement by declaring a Climate Emergency, after discussion with groups demanding strong action, such as Extinction Rebellion Southwark - so they did that. The reality on the ground is that given budget constraints, legal constraints, political considerations - they can't take all the actions that the big statement and the headline goals about reductions in carbon usage and cars require. They are left with smaller tools at their disposal and as many papers say, road closures and parking restrictions are the things that they can control - they go into the category of "quick wins". Hence the Movement Plan / LTNs / new plan for parking restrictions. There is also a tension between different groups pushing for eg CPZ. Some people advocate fewer cars (those supporting LTNs and removal of parking for all cars as a means of reducing motor traffic) for reasons related to fair usage of streets/ play streets/ climate and pollution considerations; others advocate supporting a shift to electric vehicles (which Southwark has signed up to and committed to roll out of charging points), also on grounds of pollution etc considerations. The former would argue for high rates of parking charges that don't discriminate by type of vehicle, and the latter would want charges to vary according to type of vehicle. The Council is doubtless a bit conflicted on the pro EV vs anti-all cars front. Meanwhile, Extinction Rebellion are plastering posters around ED criticising Southwark's lack of action. I would like to think there is a compromise to be had. But the "Emergency" part of the Climate Emergency means that anyone coming from that perspective thinks that compromise is disastrous and a kind of "ends justify means" approach is genuinely warranted. That pushes against some core ideas that we have about democracy, particularly at a local level. some random musing, as usual.