legalalien

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).

I agree. first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But so what? That was always predictable and I > doubt there are very few, if any, Farage > supporters on here. Just because someone jumps on > an issue for their own ends does not invalidate > the issue.

Now reading a bit more about the original closure. There is some TfL funding I think. This doc is interesting http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s89805/Appendix%20B%20Weekly%20streetspace%20plan%20update%20June%202020.pdf Love this extract (Rockets i think this probably where your 50% figure derives from. Was Dulwich in the "too hard" box?) "The works cuts across Highways and Transport policy, with part also being in the network management team - with support from Wardens. All the teams are linked up and working well and at pace. We?ve spilt the work into three main areas - though they are all joined up. (1) Immediate lengths being taken for social distancing (2) Bringing forward schemes that were happening to make them happen quicker (3) Bringing forward schemes that were wanted but may been in the ?too hard? box for whatever reason. To demonstrate Southwark?s intention to be transformative and bold, our intention is to use the London climate change joint statement providing a sense of purpose and demonstrate the wider cause. Six programmes that were agreed at TEC, with the focus here being ?halve petrol and diesel road journeys?. Therefore, if we use that as our premise/challenge what does that mean we have to do as a guiding principle. So, the concept is to encourage a modal shift by delivering three items of work, as follows:  Changing key junctions on main roads with TfL (to reduce road space and driving),  Improving main roads between key junctions with TfL to assist buses and bikes, and  Use Commonplace comments to reduce traffic and improve walking and cycling on side / residential streets (i.e. Low Traffic Neighbourhoods)." The main report that this is an Appendix to is at http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=7131

Just looked up the decision notice for the original closure. See para 51 re Equalities etc.. but more interesting I was led to believe that this was done / funded by emergency COVID funding. This seems to indicate that the closure was dunded out of existing "Healthy Streets" funding and largely directed at school pedestrian traffic unrelated to COVID. Am I reading that right? See here http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s89205/Report%20-%20Covid-19%20Post%20lockdown%20highway%20schemes.pdf And here http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s89209/APPENDIX%203%20-%20DULWICH%20VILLAGE.pdf which basically disses the most recent iteration of the junction.

And to add to this - there are a good number of people impacted positively (quiet streets) who oppose the measures on fairness grounds. Maybe also some living on streets impacted negatively who agree with the changes as a matter of principle? Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Legal - I agree. Much is about the echo-chamber > you live in. I have yet to meet anyone who > supports the closures but we live in a part of > Dulwich negatively impacted by them, so all the > people I speak to are living with the fallout and > so are very much against them. > > I just wish the council would give equal weighting > to the views of everyone. The recent ED LTN > meetings were so skewed towards the pro-closure > lobby that it was a bit embarrassing. The opening > slides showing only pictures of people cycling on > empty streets and regurgitating many of the > pictures supplied by the pro-closure lobby and not > showing any of the images sent to the council from > those on roads impacted by the displacement was > funny, was it not such an obvious fudge. > > The council is terrified of a level playing field > as I believe they know those impacted negatively > far outweigh those impacted positively.

Don't get me wrong, ab29, I'm completely with you (I have been here 13 years or so, but in a nearby suburb before that). I'm just trying to try and work out why both sides in the debate are 100% convinced that they are in a majority in their thinking. And I think there may be a slight element of "who you speak to at the school gate" / which neighbours you speak to. I might be wrong. I just get the feeling that those supporting the closures genuinely think that they are in the majority, as do those (people like me) who see the problems with them. I can't see how we solve this absent (i) hard evidence, which doesn't seem to be happening any time soon or (ii) people recognising that they are in bubbles and making a conscious effort to see where others are coming from. Personally, I'd give a fair amount of weight to those who are living on the affected streets. But of course we are on an online forum and people believe what they want to...

If only we could have a break down of where those supporting / not supporting live and their demographic. I personally know loads of people within the LTN - business owners, friends and acquaintances who are opposed to the DV /Calton closures. For a variety of reasons - problems for the business; mobility problems; parents trying to get to after school and sports activities; and despite some posters on here insisting that social conscience cannot possibly be a thing, a large number believing it?s unfair to do an instant, under- analysed migration of all traffic to residential A roads. I know hardly anyone locally (in fact possibly no-one other than the posters I see on here) who supports the closures. Those who support the closures presumably have a group of friends / acquaintances who believe the same as them - I don?t think they?re being ingenuous when they suggest they support a majority view. So one way or another we?re in bubbles. Is it maybe age related / related to how long people have been in the area? Is it younger people with primary aged children who have moved to Dulwich more recently who are in favour and older, old timers against? I put that up there as a straw man in the interests of trying to understand why both sides are so far apart and believe their views are majority views - not (before anyone jumps on me) as some sort of ?anti-newcomer? sentiment.

I imagine they get the Waze data through TfL as part of the TfL / Waze collaboration https://www.transport-network.co.uk/New-Waze-of-working/15802

Has anyone else noticed an increase in the number of black cabs in the area? On the outward leg of my morning run I noticed 7 today, it was sufficiently unusual to be noticeable. It was during the DV closure window and I do wonder whether people may be switching to black cabs as they are allowed through the timed gates. I have known parents in the past to put children into Ubers for the school run (having a regular agreement with the Uber driver), I can imagine some might well switch to a black cab option. Or maybe it?s an anomaly!

Yes, I imagine a number of councils will be watching this with interest. As it's a coroner's inquiry / inquest I don't think there will be a judgment on the law but from the arguments reported in the Times it seems to have been suggested that Lewisham should have declared a "public health emergency" given high levels of NO2. Not sure what the significance of that would be..

I like the idea but I think everyone would need to get them self a new, alternative username... and try and agree on a prioritised list of ultimate aims on the one hand, and ?floors? in terms of maximum negative effects, on the other. And then get into the detail. So eg what are the priorities in terms of clean air / active travel/ specific forms of active travel / equality / schools vs other areas And what negative effects are a step too far eg how much displacement traffic or reduction in air quality on ?main? roads; effect on particular local businesses eg those who are delivery businesses, ability for those who need to live outside the area due to housing cost but have to work in the area / those whose income depends on things like speed of delivery/ number of deliveries that they do. I am sure there are more. So if we could maybe just start with a list of all the considerations before attempting prioritisation... but isn?t that how policy is formed anyway? ch Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sorry to have disappeared again... was going to > post replies to some of the comments/questions > about my past Green Bus campaign, but I?m now > wondering if someone wants to start a new thread > to discuss alternative solutions in general to the > LTN/Healthy Streets issues so that we can try to > move forwards in a productive manner as a > community?

I'm happy to but someone else told me that if there were Southwark issues that weren't specific to Dulwich wards they should go in the Lounge. Surely you can just ignore the thread if you're not interested in it?

I have leaflet FOMO now. Who or what are Coalition4Dulwich? I'm assuming it's not shorthand for OneDulwich? Haven't had anything from them recently although have had one or two cards through the letterbox, historically.

I didn't get a leaflet. What is it about?