legalalien

Have just spotted this Draft TMO on the Southwark site. https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/32142/Map-based-system-static-restrictions-notice-dated-21-Jan-2021-.pdf Long and detailed, but according to the explanatory note it: ?constitutes a re-drafting of the existing parking places restrictions within the London Borough of Southwark to be compliant with the requirements of map-based Traffic Management Orders; (ii) the implementation of this Order shall revoke all references to any previous Orders enacted by the London Borough of Southwark in relation to any restrictions represented in this Order and make no material change to any existing restriction; and (iii) those existing restrictions enacted through on-going Experimental Traffic Orders will continue to progress through to the evaluation and completion of each scheme.? There is a similar order for waiting / loading restrictions. The public notice says that ?the effect of the proposals is to reintroduce all static parking, waiting, loading and stopping restrictions borough-wide into a new map-based format. There will be no material change to any of the operational specifications or dimensions of those restrictions.? I imagine (don?t know) they?re implementing something along the lines of this https://www.highwaysmagazine.co.uk/Buchanan-launches-traffic-order-data-open-API-for-ParkMap-/5444. Hopefully ex-dulwicher or someone in the know can come along and enlighten us! Consultation closes on 11 February. I guess if anyone has any particular issues / things they want to double check have been properly transposed (thinking things like loading bays for businesses) it might be worth doing so...

From today?s Times The Times view on Covid street closures and cycle lanes: Road Rancour. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-times-view-on-covid-street-closures-and-cycle-lanes-road-rancour-fmcstn3jm

Do you not think that?s just a little bit ... troll-like? You have no idea what anyone on here does with their free time. And nor does it matter. malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's a shame that as so many of you have lots of > free time you cannot use your time more > productively in improving the world rather than > use all your energy on a very parochial matter. > Feedback is not a scientific survey of attitudes. > Most just go with the flow.

The most recent petition is due to be considered at the Cabinet meeting on 2 Feb, the deadline for public questions is Weds 27 January. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=6666&x=1 Perhaps worth asking what the sources of evidence / scope of the review will be - or at least ask whether / how these will be made transparent to the public in a timely fashion... Or maybe a question about FoI requests...

Hi all, A range of new minor traffic schemes proposed for the Dulwich area are up for decision - see http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50024108. Haven't read them all, mostly yellow lines etc, looks like a timed school street for Heber, some passing bays in St Aidan's Road and a strengthening of parking restrictions around DPL to include no loading signs, among others...

Completely random idea : some of them could band together and offer short break virtual holidays in school holidays - say three or four country "themes" to choose from, a different restaurant delivering dinner each night (and maybe daily breakfast / packed lunch hampers), a set of "holiday reads", activity books for kids, some nice flowers, some spa stuff, a mystery item from duty-free, some sort of back yard sports activity, a daily entertainment item (on zoom or if we are allowed out, at your house). Am thinking a cooking class, a magician, something related to the theme country. You could do it for the Easter holiday actually, and also supply chocolate eggs. All in the packaging in terms of making it properly and thoughtfully themed - the aim being to take pressure off parents tired of thinking up menus and things to do! (Am thinking the back yard equipment could be delivered for use for the break eg petanque, pop up swimming pool, table tennis... and picked up / reused for the next customer)..

The Seven Kingdoms, surely? Cornwall joins with Wales on this model. Or too GoT?

Also worth bearing in mind that the ones shown on that website are only a proportion of the requests actually made - I have no feel for the numbers of requests that Southwark get. . TfL publish all their resolved requests on their own webpage and estimate they get about 3000 a year - although if the most recent ones are anything to go by I think they?ll have had a lot more this year as many are LTN related. https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-of-information . They?ve adopted a strategy of publishing lots online to reduce the number of requests. When I sent one in they were particularly efficient and helpful - I was quite impressed. Edited to add- a particular shout out to the TFL lady who took the time to help with a request about A level geography homework. I suspect that made her day... https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-of-information/foi-request-detail?referenceId=FOI-1819-2021

There's also this follow up to the meeting.. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/704144/response/1702264/attach/html/6/FOIA5466.1%20LTN%20Redacted.pdf.html

Not to mention the fire brigade?s comment that ?traffic is also being pushed on to main roads which holds us up further.?

Exdulwicher I think the point is that they have an obligation to comply with FoI they?re just not doing so within statutory timeframes in all cases at the moment. I put in a very simple request in mid November and apart from the automated response initially (which had some wording about being busy due to COVID) have heard nothing (have now escalated to the internal Southwark address, if still no response then I guess ICO). If you look at the whatdotheyknow site there are some being responded to, some overdue etc. Interestingly someone?s managed to get the minutes of the council?s meeting with the emergency services in mid July, https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/704145/response/1687329/attach/html/3/Emergency%20Services%20feedback%2016072020.pdf.html

I did (I was using the PDF page numbering rather than the hard copy page numbering - hence the confusion! @Woodwarde Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @Legalalien - did you mean pages 14-15? Under the > Transport section

I actually agree re the resident permit point. I understand the theoretical difference between ?two schemes? but the reality is that the council pushed through its existing scheme in experimental form in order to get the TfL funding. As the councillor said at the time: ? ?In a sizable consultation response, 55 per cent of local residents supported the council?s Our Healthy Streets: Dulwich proposals which include this closure. ?The right way forward is the one the council is taking: to introduce this as an experimental measure to see if it works. ?Going back to the drawing board at this stage would just mean months of delays in putting in place measures to clean up our air and to make walking and cycling safer in Dulwich.? Nothing there about COVID.

Slarti - re permits - that was back when the problem being addressed was through traffic - https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/11871/OHS-Dulwich-Phase-3-FAQ-updated-3rd-February-.pdf : " Most of the traffic through the area is through traffic using residential streets as short?cuts to avoid congestion on the main roads." As you say, the Council has been somewhat..flexible.. about the rationale for the various measures. I think they may have made a mistake in leaping on the COVID justification. Actually that reference to congestion on the main roads is interesting as it indicates the Council were well aware that they would be re-routing traffic onto roads already at saturation point. Anyone like to bet that whatever the new proposal is, it will involve a CPZ? I don't (or maybe I do) understand why the council is so keen on these when if wants to get rid of cars - surely the solution is simply to remove on street parking altogether (this would also make space for cycle parking). Or if they do have residents' parking permits, to limit them to those without off street parking?

Just to clarify - totally agree about the signage for this particular junction and I?ve moaned about it before. My (very unclear) comment was about the proliferation of road signage generally - sorry to confuse!

Someone mentioned the concept of emissions-based parking charges in the Environmental Scrutiny Commission meeting this week so I thought I?d take a quick look. I was aware that there was a discount for residents? permits for hybrid and electric cars (see https://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking/parking-permits/on-street-permits/resident-parking-permits). The draft schedule of 2021/22 parking charges being considered at Monday?s Overview and Scrutiny meeting seem to show increased charges for residents parking permits for diesel/ non ULEZ compliant vehicles. - see p12 here http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s93134/Appendix%20G%20Fees%20and%20Charges%202021-22.pdf I?m not quite sure how this fits with the various ULEZ exemptions or where the underlying decision is - there was a recommendation in the draft Air Quality Commission report back in June. I gather there was some sort of discussion about it in 2011 - see http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s22389/Report%20Parking%20Charges%20for%20Residential%20Permits.pdf. Anyone know?

I am not, however a motorist :) For the purpose of Southwark making its decisions, a national survey is irrelevant. It needs to look at the representations it has received before making that kind of lazy generalisation in relation to the specific schemes mentioned in the report.

Just flicking through the most recent version of Southwark's Econmic Renewal Plan, which is appended to the report for this week's Brexit Panel meeting. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/g6897/Public%20reports%20pack%20Thursday%2028-Jan-2021%2018.00%20Southwark%20Brexit%20Panel.pdf?T=10 Helpfully they'e included the various links to the decisions on the Dulwich LTNs (about page 34/35), looking at them again, they are indeed very tied into the TFL Plan and include a lot of justification arooun the need for social distancing for COVID and the potential traffic effects of people not using public transport. Looks as though the Equality Impact Assessment was done at Movement Plan policy level rather than in relation to the individual measures. The Council describes opposition to the closures as " A vocal minority of motorists resisting change and some negative public feedback in terms of increased journey times.", which I don't think is all that appropriate / accurate - but if they want to create a documentary record that sets the scene for future allegations of apparent bias, who's to stop them?

I would but I don't actually need to go north of the river and we are in a lockdown :) Instead walked around our local LTN with the dog for 45 mins and saw precisely two bicycles - a dad and his child (about 8-10) both of whom were riding on the pavement despite there being zero cars on the road. But I accept there's a lockdown and this is, as a result, not particularly reliable evidence of potential use, even if it is a bit annoying that we've closed roads to allow cycling and that many cyclists are still using pedestrian space. None of the evidence at present is reliable as an indicator of "normal" traffic and I hope no-one will use it as such, one way or the other.

Do you not think it reads a bit like an attempt to explain / excuse the fact that we?ve created a lot of cycle friendly infrastructure at great expense, but very few people are actually using it? malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Interesting blog from Sustrans on health streets > with loads of links. Worth flicking through at > your leisure > > https://www.sustrans.org.uk/our-blog/opinion/2021/ > january/it-takes-both-bollards-and-behaviour-chang > e-initiatives-to-change-how-people-travel/?utm_sou > rce=Sustrans&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=1208638 > 1_The%20Network%20January%202021&utm_content=Lucy% > 20Saunders%2C%20public%20health%20specialist%20and > %20transport%20planner%20explains%20why&dm_i=6EB,7 > 71WT,A1PZC8,T5JZB,1

More cases in the pipeline, according to the Times: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/at-least-ten-legal-challenges-mounted-against-pro-cycling-road-closure-schemes-mqp7bjnpz?shareToken=829d7ddb5abfb5d322263d50e41309fe

Haven?t read it yet but here?s the link to the judgment. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2021/72.html Edited to add: quite a bit of taxi - specific stuff, but worth looking at paragraphs 142, 179-186, 191-193, 255 and 266-274 for some comments of more general relevance (criticism of the failure to do an adequate Equality Impact Assessment, and on the rationality (in a technical legal sense) of TfL's guidance). As with all judgments this is specific to the issue before the court, but it will raise questions about the adequacy of councils' equality impact assessments and decisionmaking based on the "flawed" TfL guidance, no doubt... A quote: "In my judgment, the flaws identified were symptomatic of an ill-considered response which sought to take advantage of the pandemic to push through, on an emergency basis without consultation, ?radical changes?, ?plans to transform parts of central London into one of the largest car-free zones in any capital city in the world?, and to ?rapidly repurpose London?s streets to serve an unprecedented demand for walking and cycling in a major new strategic shift? (Mayor?s statements on 6 and 15 May 2020). This approach was consistent with the additional guidance from the Secretary of State for Transport dated 9 May 2020 where he advocated a shift to walking and cycling and said: ?We recognise this moment for what it is: a once in a generation opportunity to deliver a lasting transformation in how we make short journeys in our towns and cities?? 267. The scale and ambition of the proposals, and the manner in which they were described, strongly suggest that the Mayor and TfL intended that these schemes would become permanent, once the temporary orders expired. However, there is no evidence to suggest that there will be a permanent pandemic requiring continuation of the extreme measures introduced by the Government in 2020. 268. The Guidance advised that, pursuant to the Plan: ?We need to urgently reconsider use of street space to provide safe and appealing spaces to walk and cycle as an alternative to car use in the context of reduced capacity on the public transport network. Suppressing motorised traffic while allowing essential journeys to take place is key to ensuring we manage our road and public transport network to maximise our ability to keep people moving safely.? 269. The stated justification for the restrictions on vehicle access, namely, that after lockdown, because of the limited public transport capacity, there would be a major increase in pedestrians and cyclists, and excessive traffic with consequent risks to safety and public health, was not evidence-based. It was mere conjecture, which was not a rational basis upon which to transform London?s roads. It must have been apparent to the Mayor and TfL that people were responding to the pandemic by staying at home, especially office workers, and so it was possible that they would continue to do after lockdown, to avoid infection. Central London was deserted during lockdown. Even once the lockdown was relaxed, and the government exhorted people to return to work to boost the city centre economies, people chose to remain at home where possible. There was no evidence to indicate that the predicted five-fold increase in the number of pedestrians and ten-fold increase in the number of cyclists in central London occurred. " ... "273. If the Mayor and TfL had proceeded more cautiously, monitoring the situation and acting upon evidence rather than conjecture, their proposals would have been proportionate to the difficulties which needed to be addressed. As it was, the measures proposed in the Plan and the Guidance, and implemented in the A10 order, far exceeded what was reasonably required to meet the temporary challenges created by the pandemic. It was possible to widen pavements to allow for social distancing, and to allocate more road space to cater for an increase in the number of cyclists, without seeking to ?transform? parts of central London into predominantly car-free zones. 274. In my judgment, it was both unfair and irrational to introduce such extreme measures, if it was not necessary to do so, when they impacted so adversely on certain sections of the public. The impact on the elderly and disabled who rely heavily on the door-to-door service provided by taxis is described at paragraphs 130 - 136 above. See also the adverse impacts identified in the EqIA (paragraphs 189-192 above). Taxis are a form of public transport. Travellers may wish to travel by taxi for legitimate reasons. Taxis have been valued by the NHS and vulnerable groups during the pandemic because they are safer than trains, buses and private hire vehicles. The detriment suffered by taxi drivers and the potential impact on their A1P1 rights, is set out in Ms Proctor?s first witness statement, paragraphs 26 - 30, and Mr Da Costa?s first witness statement at paragraphs 10 - 11. These impacts were either not considered, or automatically discounted because they were considered to be in conflict with the objectives of the Plan. 275. I conclude that the decision-making processes for the Plan, Guidance and A10 Order were seriously flawed, and the decisions were not a rational response to the issues which arose as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. " Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The trumpeters are surrounded the walls of Jericho > > > https://www.cityam.com/high-court-rules-tfls-stree > tspace-plan-unlawful/

I agree Nigello and I plead guilty myself - one of the other posters here said similar and spurred me to pay attention a while ago. I think that the decline in local newspapers has caused quite a bit of this (I?ve never bought one and until recently had never looked at one online - and that?s probably true for lots of people.) I do think civics at school should be a thing - but I guess one of the issues in this area is that a lot of people have moved here from a range of different places / backgrounds. Not sure of the solution. Maybe some sort of basic sheet that gets sent out with the council tax bill saying what the council does, what you can expect from your local councillors / who they are, where to find information (including local news sites)... ? Am conscious that moaning without thinking of practical things isn?t particularly constructive. Worth reflecting on.

I think one reason people support One Dulwich/ Dulwich Alliance, is that in the absence of proper transparency / engagement by the council with the public at large, it looks and feels like (and is?) the only vehicle for registering opposition to the ETOs in a meaningful way. The petition is not focused on residents' permits. There will be some people who would, for example, like permits for local traders and their suppliers, for those who live in or reasonably need to access the area but are unable to walk or cycle, for people working in the LTN (eg staff at the schools within the LTN); some people who would support a reduction in the hours of closure for various reasons (eg access to sports grounds); some who would like all or some of the closures removed to reduce traffic on surrounding roads (with consequent air and noise pollution) and to reduce the adverse effect on bus routes on those roads and some residents who want a residents' permit scheme. Really what people want is proper engagement: as I've said before, I don't think the Southwark processes work very well in terms of genuine public engagement. That's partly due to process flaws (having spent some time in the last few months reading a fair few council documents, all too often papers in a range of different policy areas say that there has been communication to the public through "usual Council channels" or "stakeholder groups". Council channels seems to mean a combination of social media channels (which Joe public seldom follows), Southwark Life (which I've received two or maybe three copies of during the last decade - although I have sometimes received two or even three copies of identical Southwark COVID flyers on the same day in recent weeks), and emails to known council stakeholder groups and email addresses, whose identity is shrouded in secrecy (two months after my FoI request I'm still awaiting a response to my query about who is involved in the Climate Emergency planning group). The commonplace thing is, imho, an epic fail as a tool to gauge local public opinion - since lockdown at least, only small / well-connected groups have been aware of the consultations / have digital access, and there's no way of knowing where the comments are coming from). The fact that local councillors have been such strong cheerleaders for the LTNs on social media leads many people to think that there is little chance of their giving fair consideration to alternative viewpoints. I think it's also the case that there is a degree of variation in the level of engagement that ward councillors have with their constituents. Looking at the Southwark calendar some wards seem to have more public meetings than others, and some wards have much more info on facebook than others as well. All that said - northernmonkey, I do agree that residents' permits wouldn't fix the displaced traffic on its own. northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > By this logic people are supporting One Dulwich > because they are concerned about displacement onto > other roads. If the One Dulwich /Dulwich Alliance > plans are put in place to allow for timed > restrictions with a permit system for local > residents this will mean that residents can can > pass through filters but no one else. > > How will this help? . > > For the permit system to address the concerns it > must either mean that > a) all the traffic people have concerns about > relates to local residents from SE21 driving > around the local area. > or > b) a much wider group of SE London residents > believe that they would be eligible for permits > too. > > > legalalien Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I suspect that many of those supporting One > > Dulwich and opposing the closures are doing so > in > > response to the traffic problems caused on > > surrounding roads, rather than because they want > / > > need to drive through the LTN area - so their > > personal entitlement (or otherwise) to a permit > is > > neither here nor there. > > > > > > northernmonkey Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > It was heard at the last council meeting - > > there > > > was a thread on it somewhere. > > > > > > I'd imagine there is a lot of overlap between > > the > > > signatories and one Dulwich membership - and > > > looking at the map of addresses, I do wonder > > how > > > many of them would get a permit under the One > > > Dulwich / Dulwich Alliance plans? My initial > > > sense is not many!

I think the problem now is that there are way too many signs about the place!