legalalien

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.

Here?s the link to the auction site, I think https://auctions.savills.co.uk/index.php?option=com_bidding&view=commission&layout=details&id=1353 I don?t know - but guess - that this is part of the general strategy to dispose of high value empty homes to fund affordable housing (last update on the overall policy here)... http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s92409/Report%20Review%20of%20Void%20Disposal%20Strategy.pdf There?s quite a big funding gap to overcome to meet housing objectives, it seems.

This ?Air Quality Update? info, which relates to a meeting back on 17 June, was posted on the council website yesterday. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=7241

There is a ?bus/ taxi only? gate from the roundabout into Burbage Road during the timed closures (8-10 and 3-6 weekdays) - it doesn?t make a difference whether you turn left or go around the roundabout. And of course DV northbound is shut at the same time. So assuming you live in east dulwich and can?t turn right out of (I?m assuming the Camber tennis club), then it?s not easy. You could turn left on the 205 and then right into college road, turn around somewhere eg Frank Dixon way and then battle back along the 205 and left into LL. or otherwise head to Croxted Road - but that takes you through the very congested HH junction / (still fixing the railway bridge). You can?t go right into Turney off croxted and left into Burbage to cut out that junction as there is a bus gate turning from Turney into Burbage. Don?t have any other brilliant ideas except try and travel outside the closure periods... I vaguely recall that TfL expressed reservations about turning right out of the camber etc site when considering the SMCricket club planning application earlier in the year- so you?re not wrong about the difficulty with that.

Hi there Agree re the signage, it started around the first week after half term. Picture from council letter to residents is attached.

I agree with you Nigello. The big risk of walking locally is not so much a traffic risk as a mugging risk, for younger secondary age children in particular and during the winter months with dark evenings - I know this puts a lot of parents off allowing their children to walk to school. Not exactly sure of the solution - walking bus, monitored safe points, better CCTV, but would be very interested in getting behind some of these things. With quieter areas in the closed off areas I think looking at these things is important...

I?m also not entirely convinced by the choice of control site - as the survey says, 3/4 of the children cycling at the street space site were primary school age. I have no doubt that the number of primary aged children travelling from the LTN areas (both of them) to Alleyns / JAGS and from Area A to the Hamlet and Village School is significantly greater than the number of primary aged children travelling southbound down Red Post Hill to those schools by some margin. Based on the teenagers I know, they would much rather walk or get the bus than cycle - for whatever teenager reasons that they have... (I know this is anecdotal). I do agree that there has been an uptick in primary school children from the LTN cycling to school - as a result of a combination of closed streets at key school times, schools putting better cycle rack facilities in place, and a degree of ?peer pressure? on parents to do the right thing, and that?s good. But that benefit for that relatively small number of people has to be balanced against the negative impacts that are happening to others, and I?m not convinced the balance is currently right - as I?ve said repeatedly I have concerns about social inequality / who is benefiting vs who is adversely affected in relation to this particular LTN. As a parent living locally who did the primary school run on foot and by bicycle for years before these closures went in (but still relatively recently) I think that less drastic timed closures would be sufficient. I?m also a bit concerned that this may be a bit of a ?fad? and the novelty may wear off (based on various other parents I have seen that happen to over the years once the winter weather kicks in and children get slightly older with more stuff to carry, later finish times (in the dark) etc) - let?s hope not.

Tbf I don't think Rockets said any such thing (and your description of the alleged rant sounds a little inflammatory itself?). Ordinary residents tend to take one pic when out and about - we're not part of organised / professional lobby groups with time and organisation to do appropriately timestamped roadside studies and social media campaigns. The difference may be how we got to where we are. I don't have a twitter account so am missing the social media wars but maybe I should get one and start filming on my runs / dog walks / occasional trips to the shops? I'd much rather the council put some impartial / accurate / appropriately positioned monitoring of traffic and air quality in, but if needs must? redpost Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets, but your pictures are inflammatory > hogwash. There is no context or metrics presented > with the photo, just an un-timestamped picture and > an accompanying rant about people not being able > to drive their brum brums quickly because everyone > in tooley street is secretly wearing lycra under > their business attire. > > How long did it take to clear? when did it start? > any accidents reported? Did you check the tfl > traffic cams? > > https://www.tfljamcams.net/index.php?v=openstreetm > ap > > > > > > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Nigello Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Rockets, I see that and I also see empty > > stretches > > > of LL, so neither shows a typical situation. > It > > > shows a snapshot, that's all. Every day feels > > like > > > a Friday because you maybe want it to because > > it > > > reinforces your viewpoint? (You also have a > > car, > > > so are, ipso facto, part of the problem even > > > though you may not want to believe that.) > > > > > > Nigello - you only want to see what you want to > > see (same applies for me). My pictures are > based > > on what is happening and the nonsense some > people > > are spouting about this being because of the > > Christmas tree sellers on the A205 is utter > > hogwash - anyone who bothers to look will have > > seen those queues have been there since the > LTNs > > went in and well before any Christmas trees > were > > being sold. You revel in images of proof there > > isn't a problem yet attack those posting images > > showing there is - you don't work for the > council > > do you? ;-) > > > > I am not even going to grace your accusation of > me > > being part of the problem with a response - it > is > > a childish, and frankly, ill-conceived attempt > to > > bait which really goes to show the problem > those > > who dare voice an opinion other than total > support > > for the closures face. Any second now I am sure > > you'll pull the Daily Mail/Nigel Farage/Jeremy > > Clarkson* accusation.......it's frankly > tiresome > > and goes to show how fanatical some of the > > pro-closure cultists have become - incapable of > > having any reasoned debate or acknowledge that > > there might be another side of the story > without > > defaulting to attacks. It's doing your cause no > > favours. > > > > *delete as applicable

Bridget?s comment on that thread is correct - the bad traffic in and around DV is now much earlier since the timed closures went in, as people try and get through the roundabout at Burbage before the restrictions hit - peaks at around 7:30- 8:00 am and traffic takes a while to clear out of the stretch of DV between the roundabout and EDG. And then a second queue to get through when it reopens at 10 am - here?s a pic at 10:10am last thursday...

Southwark is in the process of updating its strategy for communicating with ?customers? - it?s on the agenda for today?s cabinet meeting. The overall strategy is to move towards more digital channels but there is a clear commitment not to leave people behind: eg  ?Commit to maintaining traditional service access (telephone and face to face) for those in our community unable to access digital services.? The best person to contact with a general concern about unavailability of telephone services might be the cabinet member for Communities and Equalities, which is Alice Macdonald, [email protected]. Report here http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/b50012437/Supplemental%20Agenda%20No.%201%20Tuesday%2008-Dec-2020%2011.00%20Cabinet.pdf?T=9. That report includes an equality analysis and specifically states this ?The council will ensure traditional customer access services will remain available, so that everyone has access to high quality services. The contact centre will continue to handle emergency requests, such as housing repairs emergencies and pest control.?

The problem with the ?bedding down? approach is that the pro-closure groups have already said that the scheme as currently constituted does not do enough to effect a modal shift (see link I posted earlier today). So if it doesn?t bed down there is an argument that this is because the closures did not go far enough, as well as an argument that the closures went too far. I?m not sure quite how that can be resolved even with the monitoring. But I do think that monitoring and hard evidence is key. I still think that it makes sense to try closing off genuinely ?side? streets first ie unclassified streets, and not classified roads (eg Court Lane) which are implicitly already acknowledged as important routes, even if for mostly local traffic. And once that?s settled down, see what happens next. It?s the same principle as advocated currently, but a broader range or roads included in the initial displacement and settling process.

Incidentally reading the letter linked above took me down an internet wormhole where I found various Southwark Cycling Stakeholder Group minutes, although these seem to stop in 2018. For the ?undue external cycling influence on council policy? conspiracy theorists among you (PH is the Council officer and AC is the Southwark Cyclists rep): ?PH says we want Liveable Neighbourhoods to be healthy and that we are interested in training officers for this. PH adds that we are interested in CSG locations for Liveable Streets. PH states that we will be the ones to choose the first Liveable Streets and doesn?t want Cycling Stakeholder group to feel that we are ignoring their views. PH says we will be looking at a steering group to decide the first one and one of the CSG?s will be a part of it. PH adds that we are now asking all developers to look at how they make a healthy review. AC states that he would like to make a bid for Dulwich Village, Bellenden and sorting out Gyratory somewhere in Walworth.? https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/7455/CSG-Friday-1-September-2017.pdf

An interesting thing I hadn?t seen before - open letter to the council after the announcement on Phase 2 closures from CAD/MFL / SC / LC, suggesting that the scheme doesn?t work in its currently constituted form and that more is needed https://drive.google.com/file/d/1G7EPWew-0GIi4DinUCRSIN7Mm3Ea7uAU/view It looks like the Burbage Road closure at the roundabout was added in response to this (it was done in a separate TMO from memory), but not the other changes. If the groups are right that without additional changes there will not be a ?modal shift? then we?re going to be stuck with traffic for a while...?

I really wish the focus would shift from "commonplace" subscribers to "residents / businesses /workers", given there are almost certainly loads of the former who aren't residents and loads of the latter who don't know about commonplace and / or aren't digitally engaged - hopefully there will also be emails to those with My Southwark accounts and a mail drop of some sort. The background info to the original closure suggests that using commonplace as the main consultation vehicle is intended to extend past lockdown. I think too much reliance on that as a mechanism requires some careful thought - its open to manipulation ( by any organised group) so that it doesn't reflect the thoughts of the Southwark community. (I know it says "in the first instance", but all the underlying decision documents put a very heavy emphasis on commonplace).