legalalien

The less people driving means the average air quality is improved. It doesn't automatically mean better air quality for everyone. Depending on design, it may worsen air quality for those who already have poor air quality and improve air quality for those who already have relatively OK air quality. Which is why the Guys etc project has clearly spent a lot of time and effort on site selection ( to try and benefit those with the worst air quality) and are emphasising the importance of monitoring. It feels a bit like this

Fourthed. And just to add, LadBaby has become the third act in UK chart history, after The Beatles and the Spice Girls, to score three straight Christmas number one singles. Has made my day.

I think the petition is quite carefully crafted. It doesn't specify proposed closure times or exactly who would benefit from permits. It just seeks to reopen the issues. I think that's sensible as it allows all of those who have issues with the current closures to get behind it - with a view to getting the council to take a fresh look at the whole scheme. I gather it's been set up by One Dulwich even though it doesn't say that? I guess that those running that group have a view on the best solution - which others with concerns about the current scheme (me) may or may not agree with, but that's something to be discussed once the primary aim of opening discussions has been achieved? So yes, northernmonkey I share your concern, but I think we need to get to a position of " something needs to change with the current scheme" first, and then work on what that change is. Otherwise the risk is that there is a split between those who favour different solutions and we end up with the status quo.

Link to Transport for London "Travel in London" Report 13 (think someone linked to the press release on a previous thread - however the press release is understandably selective as to which figures it mentions) content.tfl.gov.uk/travel-in-london-report-13.pdf Interesting read about travel trends in London in 2019 (and then post-pandemic). On about page 92 it seems that TfL has some concerns about DfT vehicle mileage estimates following DfT adjustments to minor road estimates and there are ongoing discussions - TfL sticking to its own figures for the time being. Looks as if someone has put in an FoI request to find out more info about this...

You can head to the park (towards the college) at any time of day. If you turn right out of the park, when you get to the burbage road / war memorial roundabout, then you can't go through the village, or go into Burbage Road, during the times listed above, so no, you can't go back the way you came at those times. (You have to turn left out of the park, and go via south circular and lordship lane or croxted road / herne hill, depending on your ultimate destination.) Alternatively, you could park in the village somewhere just north of the Burbage Road roundabout and walk to the park from there if you can. Then you'd be on the "right side" of the bus gate when leaving (the signs and cameras are at the roundabout), and could drive back past the Dog.

The council refreshed its overall plan recently and has just put the detailed ?measures? it will use to track progress against the plan on its website at http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s92603/Report%20-%20Council%20Plan%20Performance%20Schedules.pdf These are not so much quantified targets / an SLA, as things that will be measured. It?s quite an interesting read to get a feel for the Council?s thinking on various issues. On the LTN front, the measures are set out below (apologies for formatting). Interesting that some of the measures relate to number of roads closed (separately from eg traffic reduction). Make Southwark a Low Traffic Borough, dedicating more of our highways to zero carbon uses including walking and cycling and improving air quality by reducing car journeys CR EL / CEX CE3.1 MI Evaluate the effectiveness of the Street Space Plan and review the Dulwich LTN and use this learning to drive further improvements for the rest of the programme CR EL / CEX CE3.2 ME Prepare a Low Traffic Plan, inclusive of an action plan CR EL / CEX CE3.3 ME Annual vehicle kms (millions) CR EL / CEX CE3.4 ME Length of accessible cycle routes delivered CR EL / CEX CE3.5 ME Number of roads with motor vehicle restrictions including modal filters, school street closures, footway widenings CR EL / CEX CE3.6 ME Decrease the percentage of children being driven to school at each school where School Street closures are implemented CR EL / CEX CE3.7 ME Decrease the percentage of children being driven to school at each school where School Street measures are not possible CR EL / CEX CE3.8 MI Develop baseline for % of highways given to zero-carbon use and implement reporting

Closures during peak times, presumably, rather than the other way around ( so that the roads could act as a relief route during peak hours)? Closures during peak times doesn't seem to address the displacement traffic unless a large proportion of the displaced traffic is local residents driving the long way around? Or is the intent to facilitate walking /cycling to school during key windows, I wonder.

Thanks for posting, looks really interesting.

It doesn't actually say residents permits though - does anyone know if this is what is meant? Could be permits for say disabled people, emergency vehicles, people who work in the area, delivery drivers - all of which would take traffic off the roads that currently take the displaced traffic? I thought One Dulwich were asking for timed closures?

The written responses to public questions asked at the Council Assembly meeting on 25 November have been published on the website and include this: "2. QUESTION FROM CLIVE RATES TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR LEISURE, ENVIRONMENT AND ROADS As Southwark are aware, the road closures and restrictions which have been implemented in Dulwich are fundamentally different to those which had been consulted on earlier this year, and don?t in our view have the support of the local community. We and other residents groups have made sincere and constructive attempts to put forward workable amendments to the schemes. Please can Southwark confirm that there will be a meaningful and well publicised consultation of affected residents (ie Areas A, B & C as per the consultation earlier this year) on Phase 1 of the Dulwich scheme prior to 17 December this year, being the deadline for objections to the Experimental Traffic Order? RESPONSE The council has put together a comprehensive package of monitoring and engagement with the community. This will contain a large amount of measured data and we will be asking anyone who feeds back to us to provide some information on where they live and how they use the streets. This will help us to really understand different people's views and move forward in an informed manner. Information about the review process and engagement meetings will be set out early in the New Year. This exercise will be carried out over the coming months with an open report on what has been done expected to be presented in the spring. After this we will continue to look and listen as we go through the process of making decisions on the future of the schemes The 17 December deadline specifically relates to the relevant highways legislation that provides for a statutory 6 month period to lodge formal objections to any experimental trial scheme. We will give equal weight and consideration to any objection and/or comment received after this date, as part of the proposed consultation mentioned above."

For info: Southwark's Air Quality Status Report for 2019 (dated May 2020), with associated presentation, GLA comments on the report etc - tabled at last night's Health and Wellbeing Board meeting - starts at about p 35 after the Covid update. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/b50012480/Supplemental%20Agenda%20No.%201%20Monday%2021-Dec-2020%2017.00%20Health%20and%20Wellbeing%20Board.pdf?T=9

Here?s a link to a report delivered to the Council?s Health and Well-being Board yesterday, with recent Southwark-specific info on testing, cases etc. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/b50012480/Supplemental%20Agenda%20No.%201%20Monday%2021-Dec-2020%2017.00%20Health%20and%20Wellbeing%20Board.pdf?T=9

That seems quite sensible to me as well. Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Abe_froeman Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > They should have made Calton one way towards > > dulwich village and court lane one way towards > > lordship lane and then put a wide two way cycle > in > > the spare lane on each road. > > Exactly what quite a few said!!

I don?t think it?s the ?no through road? sign that?s the trigger, the question is whether you?ve gone past the blue sign that restricts passage to buses, taxis and cycles. So you could go from the south circular into college road OK, the problem only arises if you enter DV or Burbage Road during the restricted times, for example.

Obvs all the cyclists wouldn?t be from Calton Avenue but I?d hazard a guess many would be from the closed roadS in Areas A and B. I walk around the area a lot during the day and there are very few cyclists outside the school run- some on Calton but few to none on Court Lane / Woodwarde Road. It makes no sense for Court Lane to be unused all day when there is horrific traffic on the displacement roads. Random thought as I was walking there today and noticed a lot of free kerbside parking spaces - why not re-open Court Lane, remove on street parking on one side of the road; restrict on street parking on the other side of the road to residents without off street parking (plus some areas reserved for delivery vans, carers who need to visit etc), and then put in a cycle lane (which would address the ?route? issue for DulwichCentral). Alternatively the pavements are very wide, could have pavements on one side for pedestrians and the other for cycles? It seems to me that a cycling route could be implemented reasonably easily without having to do the displacement thing. Calton also quite wide so could have a school street thing at peak times and some sort of similar ?remove parking and cycle Lane? or ?designate pavement? alternative? Edited to add - on Malumbu?s point about hurting the driver - a good place to start may be two car households (in circumstances where both cars aren?t required for work purposes) - hence start by targeting on street parking for people who have off street parking?

Will do. In practical terms does the money go further than the physical donations (so you can buy in bulk? I'm guessing not a charity so no gift aid available?) Are you still looking for volunteers?

On the bright side, it?s been confirmed that Santa is allowed through (see attached)

Just having a look at that evidence pack and it raises a lot of questions in terms of which stats were included / not included and what some of the terms mean. What stands out for me though, is that those involved made a clear conceptual distinction between "residential roads" (Court Lane, Turney and Burbage" and "major" roads (Lordship Lane, East Dulwich Grove). No-one seems concerned about the fact that Lordship Lane and East Dulwich Grove are also residential roads. For example, there's no comparison of the amount of traffic that Lordship Lane and East Dulwich Grove are carrying versus similar A roads in Southwark - which seems a pretty important omission when considering whether or not to push traffic onto them. On a related note, it would be useful to have the underlying info about the "basket" of "typical residential roads" compared against (I note that further up the comparison is said to be "similar" residential roads, which implies something different. Is the comparison against ALL residential roads in Southwark; or all residential roads similar to these roads in Southwark (e.g. classified C roads), or all non-A/B roads in Southwark? If the latter then it's obvious that e.g. Court Lane would carry more than the average as it is(was) a through route (and classified C road), rather than a side street or a dead end. Does anyone know? Also seems to be a comparison of average "weekdays" of the specified roads with average "days" on Southwark roads generally - it's unclear whether this is just poor expression or whether the latter figures are actually whole week averages. I could go on - but generally leaving out this kind of info doesn't help paint a convincing picture to the first-time reader... Lastly, I note that the last slide shows peak pollution times on East Dulwich Grove and Townley Road, but that the levels of pollution are not shown - it's odd for a graph not to have a y axis... the info must exist in order to produce that graph, does anyone know where that info exists? And why omit the info in the first place - you'd have to deliberately take it out? I suspect these points have been well rehearsed in the past - if so apologies for raising again!

The focus on the LTNs here is because this is a thread about the Dulwich LTNs? I have no problem with more severe measures- the ULEZ will help but I think increasing the cost of polluting motoring and, for example, banning domestic fires are good ways forward. Channeling traffic onto main roads regardless of the consequences for their denizens (and for those forced to sit in idling traffic - let's not forget these are bus routes) , in order to make traffic so bad that a percentage of people give up driving short journeys - not so much a good way forward (particularly when those giving up the short journeys are the ones benefiting from quiet streets, not those suffering the consequences). Just because it's one of the few things Southwark can do with the powers it has (and I get that) still doesn't make it OK in my view. (Interesting article about air pollution inside buses here https://www.driving.co.uk/news/public-transport-worse-than-driving-for-exposure-to-air-pollution/). Hopefully TfL will see some sense and intervene. From what I can gather from an FOI exchange with TfL, Southwark didn't formally notify TfL of the Dulwich closures through the TMAN scheme until 10 November - long after making the orders (which seems odd, given the statutory scheme requires advance notification to TFL (and TfL approval or non-objection) before making any experimental order that would be "likely to affect" the South Circular or Lordship Lane). I can't see how the Phase 2 closures don't meet that test - particularly given the whole point of the closures is to channel "rat running" traffic onto those roads. Let's see.

Rockets is right though - and what Ms Kissi-Debrah says in this Guardian article summarises the views of several of us on here I think: ?But what has been unexpected is the diverse nature of campaigners within the anti-LTN groups. Even some of the individuals themselves are surprised. Rosamund Kissi-Debrah says: ?If you randomly rang me up and said, ?Rosamund, what do you think about a low-traffic neighbourhood??, I?d say, ?Ooh, that sounds great definitely.? But where I live, and I can only talk about Lewisham, it has been a disaster.? Kissi-Debrah is a World Health Organization clean-air advocate whose nine-year-old daughter Ella died in 2013 after suffering a series of severe asthma attacks. She lives in Hither Green, south-east London, just off the South Circular, one of London?s busiest roads. Ella loved to cycle, scoot and skateboard ? ?you name it? ? and her two siblings are similarly ?obsessed with two wheels?. Kissi-Debrah follows behind them on a scooter: ?A manual one, not electric,? she exclaims. ?So I can?t be anti-cyclist.? For Kissi-Debrah, the issue with low-traffic neighbourhoods is air quality and fairness. ?For people who live in an LTN, yes, life is better, I don?t deny that,? she says. ?But their traffic is going somewhere. And this brings up all sorts of issues: social justice and environmental justice. You cannot live in a neighbourhood where one part has an LTN and children are cycling and playing outside and the roads are safe, then pop along a couple of roads later and there?s gridlocked traffic. We cannot live in a society like that.? https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/nov/01/car-free-neighbourhoods-the-unlikely-new-frontline-in-the-culture-wars

Have just had a "re-leaflet" from Coalition4Dulwich, updated to advise that there is apparently an online form where you can log in to give your views on the closures (in addition to the commonspace site or emailing the highways dept, as advised on the traffic page of the website). The address is https://forms.southwark.gov.uk/ShowForm.asp?fm_fid=1081, and the reference number is TMO2021-EXPO2_LSPDulwich. I haven't actually tested this, as I've already put in a response and couldn't test without making a duplicate. I believe the deadline is tomorrow.

People won't take action until they properly understand the exact nature of the problem and the specific health effect on them and their children - all of us arguing about things on this thread might, but plenty of people don't give air quality a second thought. More granular monitoring, and proactively telling people about pollution levels in their specific area, and comparing it to other areas, is a way of focusing the mind. And yes, more info might lead people who are or whose children are particularly prone to respiratory illness to move - for them there isn't time to wait around for medium to long term general policy interventions to have an effect. And or course, given my views expressed previously, I think more granular monitoring should be used to ensure that no highways policy increases pollution in any given area above a maximum acceptable level - even if it brings the average down by improving air quality in other areas.

The coroner?s decision in the Ella Kissi- Debrah case has been delivered. It finds that air pollution made a material contribution to her death. Kudos to her mother and all those involved in pushing for this inquest. Let?s hope it leads to more air pollution monitoring, advice etc. As noted on the other thread the Southwark Health and Well-being Board have air quality on their agenda for next week. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-55330945

The Southwark Health and Well-being Board is meeting on Monday 21st and one of the agenda items is a presentation and report called AIR QUALITY ANNUAL STATUS REPORT 2019. Background info not yet up on the website but I guess will be added before the meeting - here?s the link http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=6887

It would be helpful to whether the school?s proposal covered all the refurb costs plus a market rental (and involved external funding ie not from the Council? I imagine this would be a pretty hefty figure (I?d be surprised if a school could raise enough funding to come anywhere near the economic benefit of sale at the market value?). If the school can raise that sort of money I?m impressed! I do agree that more transparency on this (and everything) is highly desirable.