legalalien

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?

I still haven?t had a response to my query (and then FoI request) about who is on the Partnership Steering group for this, but it appears that Extinction Rebellion Southwark and Fossil Free Southwark are on it, as they are currently threatening to withdraw: XR due to perceived lack of action / lack of citizen engagement on the issues and FFS with similar concerns and (paraphrasing) due to perceived Council incompetence. See https://xrsouthwark.earth/about-us/open-letter-to-councillor-johnson-situ https://fossilfreesouthwark.wordpress.com/2020/11/27/climate-strategy-partnership-steering-group-statement-27-11-2020/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Nearly 6000 people have signed the petition now, and four days until the deadline for felling. It would be great if a compromise could be found.

I think all 32 boroughs including the Kent outer boroughs (bexleyheath and Bromley) are tier 2? See https://www.gov.uk/guidance/full-list-of-local-restriction-tiers-by-area Just put in my grandparents' old address into the postcode checker to see, and it comes up as tier 2. As does the postcode for Bexley high street.

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/dulwich-village-streetspace-phase-2-community-meeting-tickets-130809997223?utm_source=eventbrite&utm_medium=email&utm_content=follow_notification&utm_campaign=following_published_event&utm_term=Dulwich+Village+Streetspace+Phase+2+Community+Meeting&aff=ebemoffollowpublishemail Hopefully this works.. Even if you don?t want to attend this one I?d recommend that people follow the link and ?follow? the Southwark Community Engagement team, they seem to have started using this mechanism to notify people of the various consultation meetings.

holymoly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What has happened to a Phase 1 meeting? Or is > Dulwich Village junction being buried. It was a > single initiative with its own period for > objection. No idea. Think the window for formal objections is still open for a couple of weeks?

I?ve just had an ?eventbrite? message advising of the following meeting - similar to the one held re the East Dulwich closures today: ?Dulwich Village Streetspace Phase 2 Community Meeting Tuesday, 15 December 2020 at 13:00? Not sure of the exact link but if you go to eventbrite.co.Uk and search for the Southwark Community Engagement Team it should come up.

Information about TfL activity in Southwark (including funding for Southwark Local Implementation Plans) here: https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/boroughs-and-communities/southwark#on-this-page-1 If anyone wants to comment on the TfL trial of operating bus lanes 24/7 - the link is here https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/better-bus-journeys/

Update: have had a response from Cllr Newens re TfL?s FoI response - she is unaware of any additional proposed closures. Hopefully Cllr Rose will respond as well. Trying to read the response as though it might just mean additional signs on the A205/ Croxted to warn of the existing closures.. it just doesn?t read like that. But I wouldn?t rule out poor wording. Let?s see....

I think that?s what it is saying - and also access to Belair Park, the drop off for the DPL nursery in Gallery Road, and the DPL sports ground in Gallery Road - and also means the only vehicular access to the major sports facilities in Burbage and Turney Road (including the part of the sports ground accessed from Gallery Road) would be via The Half Moon Lane end of Burbage Road, as far as I can tell. Given that people come to use those facilities from well outside the area (for school sports, for after school training, and for fixtures attended by opposition teams) - this is going to make things very difficult if not impossible for them. All in all the effect would be to close off the green resources of Dulwich to those outside the area. I completely get the aim of encouraging people to do things locally and the 15 minute city type thinking - but we have to be careful that we?re not denying people access to key community facilities and green space just because they live more than 15 minutes away, where there are no similar facilities in the area where they live... I?ll email Cllr Rose and the ward councillors to see If I can find out anything...

As noted on the ?info? thread,boroughs are asked to discuss all Streetspace (including LTN) proposals with TfL. In addition, there is a statutory requirement to make Traffic Management Act 2004 Notifications (TMAN): ?Pursuant to the Traffic Management Act 2004, any activity carried out by the Boroughs using Highways Act 1980 (HA) or Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (RTRA) powers which will or are likely to affect the Strategic Road Network (SRN) or the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) is notifiable by the Borough to TfL through TfL?s TMAN process.? Section 121B of the RTRA requires TfL to be notified and either consent, or ?not object? within one month. I put in an FOI request to TfL re TMAN applications for DV/ ED closures: just received their response. It says nothing about those closures (not sure that means there were no TMAN notification or not), but here are some new / amended closures that Southwark have apparently asked TfL to consider: ?TfL received a Traffic Management Act 2004 Notification (TMAN ) from Southwark Borough Council reference number N2004545, on the 10 November 2020. This TMAN was relating to Dulwich Village London Streetspace Programme (LSP) timed access restrictions. The scheme notification relates to timed access restrictions on multiple roads around Dulwich village from 8am ? 10am and 3pm ? 6pm. The proposed changes are: restricted access to Turney Road from Croxted Road, to Gallery Road from A205 Thurlow Park Road, and to College Road from A205 Dulwich Common. The information currently provided includes a General Arrangement drawing with proposed signage locations / wording and scheme impact monitoring document highlighting ATC camera positioning on East Dulwich Grove and Lordship Lane. Please see attached. At present we are still reviewing the detail of the LSP and what implications the restrictions may have on the Transport for London Road Network and the Strategic Road Network (TLRN / SRN) corridors, especially the potential for traffic reassignment on the SRN corridor Lordship Lane and the potential for impact to bus services along this corridor. TfL will need to agree a monitoring strategy with Southwark.?

Yes but do note the expanded scope of the closures they are now speaking to TfL about. I failed to notice this non the first read through, but it does look as though they are planning to expand Fortress Dulwich a little further (or at least shore up the defences...)

To change the subject slightly. As noted on the ?info? thread,boroughs are asked to discuss all Streetspace (including LTN) proposals with TfL. In addition, there is a statutory requirement to make Traffic Management Act 2004 Notifications (TMAN): ?Pursuant to the Traffic Management Act 2004, any activity carried out by the Boroughs using Highways Act 1980 (HA) or Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (RTRA) powers which will or are likely to affect the Strategic Road Network (SRN) or the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) is notifiable by the Borough to TfL through TfL?s TMAN process.? Section 121B of the RTRA requires TfL to be notified and either consent, or ?not object? within one month. I thought it would be interesting to know whether Southwark had gone through the TMAN process for the village junction closure and/ or the Turney, Burbage, DV times closures, and the Melbourne/ Elsie etc closures given the potential knock on effect on Lordship Lane, so I put in an FOI request to TfL. Just received their response. It says nothing about those closures (not sure that means there was no TMAN notification or not), but here are some new ones that Southwark have apparently asked them to consider: ?TfL received a Traffic Management Act 2004 Notification (TMAN ) from Southwark Borough Council reference number N2004545, on the 10 November 2020. This TMAN was relating to Dulwich Village London Streetspace Programme (LSP) timed access restrictions. The scheme notification relates to timed access restrictions on multiple roads around Dulwich village from 8am ? 10am and 3pm ? 6pm. The proposed changes are: restricted access to Turney Road from Croxted Road, to Gallery Road from A205 Thurlow Park Road, and to College Road from A205 Dulwich Common. The information currently provided includes a General Arrangement drawing with proposed signage locations / wording and scheme impact monitoring document highlighting ATC camera positioning on East Dulwich Grove and Lordship Lane. Please see attached. At present we are still reviewing the detail of the LSP and what implications the restrictions may have on the Transport for London Road Network and the Strategic Road Network (TLRN / SRN) corridors, especially the potential for traffic reassignment on the SRN corridor Lordship Lane and the potential for impact to bus services along this corridor. TfL will need to agree a monitoring strategy with Southwark.? May explain why only a temporary sign has gone in on Turney Road going towards the Village? Tell me I?m reading this wrong....