legalalien

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.

Happy to :) Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @legalalien to be fair please can you tell > @rockets off too? I expect he'll be along shortly > with his 'pro-LTN lobbyists' language? > > Lastly - a plea not to use the term "anti-LTN > types". This kind of language, which suggests that > everyone either supporting or against the specific > LTNs with which this thread is concerned share the > same views and are vehemently in favour or against > each and every LTN in the world, is a big part of > the problem imho.

So really - what a consultation needs to do, is be designed in such a way that it accurately identifies what most people feel about proposals (ie no skewed questions), but more importantly, in a way that allows the decision-maker to collect enough information to make a properly informed decision, in particular, knowledge about the likely impacts on all of those affected. It isn't, after all, a referendum - I think everyone accepts that. And then if the decision-maker makes a decision that is clearly against the wishes of the majority of those consulted, they should be required to give a transparent, reasoned justification for their decision. (ETA actually they should do that in all cases). The design needs to make sure that everyone involved has equal levels of transparency and opportunity to give input throughout the process ie from an early stage, before a "de facto" decision is made, and that there is adequate and unbiased collection of critical data. That's what most of the people complaining about the council on here want, I think - it just isn't being delivered. And even if some of it is being delivered, it certainly doesn't appear that way - which is a problem in itself. The thing is, Peter, you say you were "asked along as a local". You can't really believe that's true - what other "locals" are randomly asked along to speak at council meetings? No-one else gets a chance to speak at them without applying to make a deputation and if they are accepted, being given an extremely limited window. You were asked because you were a potentially influential journalist with an interest in active travel issues - who those present and taking the minutes thought of as a "cycling campaigner" and someone those who issued the invitation would like to have "in the tent", surely? You must see the impression it gives? If you look back to the meeting, the people invited were a lady from a Play Street charity, you and Simon Munk of LCC apparently together, and a lady from Living Streets London. There is no suggestion of inviting anyone to give an alternative perspective. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/g6464/Printed%20minutes%20Wednesday%2004-Dec-2019%2019.00%20Environment%20Scrutiny%20Commission.pdf?T=1 Lastly - a plea not to use the term "anti-LTN types". This kind of language, which suggests that everyone either supporting or against the specific LTNs with which this thread is concerned share the same views and are vehemently in favour or against each and every LTN in the world, is a big part of the problem imho.

I think I heard somewhere that the funding is for a feasibility study rather than putting in the crossing at this stage. But I'm not sure where.

Watching Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting. Network Rail presentation on Denmark Hill and Peckham Rye stations. Mock up of Peckham Rye looks great. Apparently new public square outside, but seem to be some concerns about ability to retain existing local business. Not sure if there are issues there.

That's a good point - plenty of room to discuss / influence detail, not just talk about the point of principle. Given how much I moan about LTN arguments being too binary I should have been thinking along those lines. Maybe we could all look to frame the inevitable CPZ debates along those lines rather than CPZ good v CPZ bad...

I don't know, but when you think about it, if there's an approved borough-wide Movement Plan that says "CPZ everywhere", it's difficult to see how the result of a statutory consultation on a particular CPZ would come out other than in favour of the CPZ unless there were some very specific objections that couldn't be ignored? There's an interesting situation in Bermondsey as they seem to have run a consultation in May, then decided to implement, then realised that the consultation info hadn't got to many people in lock-down, and are now re-consulting. The report says this: Stat consultation May '20. Objections received but placed on hold due to complaints about order advertising in lockdown. Stat consultation to be re-run May '21 with enhanced publicity. Implementation 2021 (article in Southwark News here: https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/cpz-extended-in-bermondsey-after-council-says-there-were-no-objections/?cmpredirect).

In case of interest- an overview of the council's proposed timetable to roll out CPZs to remaining areas of Southwark is on the agenda for next week's Environment Scrutiny Commission. Not formal proposals at this atage but gives an idea of the direction of travel. There will have to be statutory consultation in due course. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s94318/Parking.pdf A big chunk of East Dulwich is coloured magenta on the map, with "to be confirmed" against it - I expect that relates to dates, rather than existence of CPZ, as I believe a borough wide CPZ is contemplated by the overall council Movement Plan.

Just to update on the higher diesel rate for pay and display bays, one of the briefing notes for next week's Environment Scrutiny Commission indicates that "A diesel surcharge in pay and display bays was agreed by Cabinet through the budget setting process in 2020/21 and will be implemented this financial year." The council is considering other options in relation to an emissions based parking policy. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s94320/Air%20Quality%20Climate%20Emegency%20Community%20Energy%20recommendations%20tracked.pdf There's a separate paper re further CPZ roll out which I'll post separately.

Just read the report, it is interesting, including the acknowledgement that the Dulwich scheme can't be justified on equity grounds: "We are also aware that some districts initially implemented emergency measures based on schemes already under consultation before the Covid-19 pandemic. This is unsurprising given the very short timeframe (around 4 months) within which districts were expected to submit and then execute their plans, but may have meant that equity was less a consideration than expediency for the very first schemes. For example, Southwark implemented oneof its first measures in the most affluent partof the district, based on schemes already under wayin that area." I was glad to see the express acknowledgement of the problem with using 2011 census data. Many of the schemes, including those in Hackney, which has the most schemes I believe, are in areas which have seen extensive levels of gentrification over the last decade and often (if what you see on the internet is to be believed) it seems to be the incomers supporting the schemes over those who have been there since pre-gentrification. Lambeth, another area at the forefront of LTNs is also an area where gentrification is happening... So I'm not entirely convinced that the data being analysed is entirely correct. But in any case, the question of which areas the LTNs have been put into is from my perspective less of an issue than the unacceptability /inequity of deliberately creating unacceptably high levels of congestion and pollution on the boundary roads - which as mentioned, this report does not address.

Camee across this interesting statement in a TfL response to a cycleway question last week "TfL has also recently acted to strengthen the liaison between boroughs and the emergency services, and to ensure that feedback about projects continues to be listened to after the introduction of projects. This has allowed any specific local issues to be raised and addressed, and has led, for example, to the much more widespread use of camera enforcement rather than physical barriers to close roads with easy access for blue light response vehicles." Sounds like an acknowledgement that things weren't being handled properly initially. Good that steps are seemingly being taken to address the issue... https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-of-information/foi-request-detail?referenceId=FOI-2159-2021

Agenda now up for the Environment Scrutiny Commission on Tuesday 9 March, which will focus on LTNs. Southwark?s head of highways will be there to provide an update on the Dulwich LTNS and Cllr Rose will be interviewed by the committee, with Cllr Burgess also to attend. Usually they?re on YouTube but it doesn?t say so specifically, so probably worth emailing to ask for an invite if you want to attend. Full details here: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=6745&x=1 ETA there is also a paper on proposed CPZ roll out across the borough, which I haven?t read properly yet, but I note that the description of the proposed DV roll out in the Appendix says ?Separate to East Dulwich; public engagement to be carried out at same time as consultation on Dulwich Phase 1/2 Streetspace/LTN measures (June/July 21); go live 22/23? So I guess the LTN consultation will be June/ July.

I know issues about dogs in public spaces get a fair bit of airtime here, so thought it worth flagging that the council is proposing to extend its current dog antisocial behaviour rules which include rules about dog fouling and the number of dogs that dog walkers can have on/off leash) until 2024, with a consultation exercise to run from 2022 to decide what happens after that. Further info here http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?id=59585&LLL=0. The background report summarises the existing rules, including rules about various cemeteries. They are going to review the signage in the Camberwell cemeteries in the near future.

I agree with you Penguin, I was just starting from the assumption that the Council would choose not to disclose, even if permitted to do so. As far as I can see the only statement on the application document is Data Protection Act Statement London Borough of Southwark holds and manages data in strict accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998. Southwark Council is the data controller for the purposes of the Data Protection Act. No personal information you have given us will be passed on to third parties for commercial purposes.