legalalien

The Council letter says that "the Dulwich area was prioritised as it has very high volumes of traffic passing through its local streets, with a high number of schools and school pupils exposed to this". So I guess the purpose is to reduce traffic on local streets which have schools on them or (impliedly) are unavoidable travel routes to schools, with the underlying purpose of reducing exposure to air pollution for school pupils (whether they travel on foot, cycle, or by vehicle - bearing in mind that children in cars and buses will also be exposed to air pollution particularly if sitting in congestion), and to increase road safety, thereby encouraging more active travel to school?

My concern is - what proportion of Southwark residents actually follow any of this stuff on Twitter etc? I don?t. There are some specific fields I?m involved in where Twitter is really useful but personally I don?t engage generally in community issues via this route and lots of others don?t either. So we have a situation where groups of people with strong and similar views follow each other and conclude that their view is the majority because everyone agrees with each other: and occasional clashes where people from the ?opposition ? challenge each other. Everyone in the middle is blissfully unaware.

I'm getting the idea that it is the vehicle for consultation. But that's not to be confused with the right to make statutory objections within six months after the experimental order goes in. I'm sure I saw somewhere that a negative comment on Commonplace does not equal an objection. This could be confusing for people, I suspect. Incidentally, today I received a hard copy of Southwark Life magazine for what must be the first time in more than five years. With info about the new leader of the council/ cabinet and links to various consultations. A move afoot? Perhaps wishful thinking.

here's the decision notice for the a further one of Guys and St Thomas' LTN schemes, in Peckham. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50024582. Slightly amended consultation process: "Meetings were held with Ward Councillors to discuss the scheme. Main concerns raised relate to the lack of consultation on the proposed measure, and the number of closures/filters being proposed. Further design work was undertaken and additional discussions with ward councilors were held, to reduce the number of filters to a level that was acceptable and to proceed without full consultation being held prior to the works taking place. 17.All measures have been designed in consultation with Southwark Waste Management. Concerns were raised regarding the additional time required to collect waste due to closures being proposed as part of the GSTTC and wider Southwark LSP schemes. 18.Consultation with schools and business will be undertaken prior to the schemes being implemented. 19.Further consultation with residents will be undertaken during the period of the Experimental Traffic Management Order via Commonplace."

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Has anyone changed their mind about LTNs after > engaging with/ reading this thread? For myself, I came to the thread largely in a state of ignorance. Confession: I'd had a passing look at the Healthy Streets leaflets that came through the door and concluded it was something I didn't need to pay much attention to as I don't drive. At all, ever. However, once I started to notice the massive decrease in air quality on East Dulwich Grove I did some googling to find out how everything had come about. As a result, I don't have a doctrinal pro-or anti LTN stance. I honestly don't think most of the "objectors" on this thread do. Same with most of the people I know locally. They think that LTNs probably work in some places if properly designed. They also think it's important that the council engage properly with the community it serves. So my bugbears related to this SPECIFIC LTN, are (i) the council's processes, in particular the lack of transparency around the way it consults/ engages specific interest groups in its policy formation - and that's what making a large number of ordinarily "silent" people locally quite angry - they feel as though they have been hijacked; and (ii) what I personally perceive to be the impact of this specific LTN, in terms of social justice type points, the impact of some specific small businesses (those who rely on making deliveries, for example) and the unacceptable pockets of congestion/ pollution that are being created. I'd like to see more discussion on what "tweaks" could be made to make the local LTN a bit better. But the whole argument seems to have become, as I've said before, entirely polarised. I'm not the "pro-LTN lobby", and it should be possible to make specific points without the constant "well, you don't really mean it, I believe you're an SUV driver who wants to drive everywhere all the time" response.

It's a pity we don't have a sort of adult equivalent of "friendship benches" in parks where you could sit, wait for a second person to turn up, and do a lap of the park or something....

That makes sense. Completely unrelated, does anyone know if there?s a process for asking to have now redundant road signs removed? A lot are going up at present and it?s getting quite confusing because there are so many different signs. There are loads on Calton Road, I?m sure the ?new? zebra crossing and ?changed priorities ahead? signs could come down (although the last one always makes me laugh as it?s very near the new one indicating that the road is now a dead end!

Yep. Plenty of people going through the Townley Road one when I walked past this morning. And another different warning sign (pic attached), which probably isn?t particularly effective foe those who don?t know the name of East Dulwich Grove. Spoke to a friend who lives in Lewisham last night, he said in the first couple of weeks they didn?t impose fines but just sent warning notices. So maybe that?s a thing?

New batch of school streets closures - Batch 3 - decision by Cllr Rose due 20 Nov (think this is a formality) http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50024563 Affects various schools in Southwark, includes timed permeable closure on Dunstans Road outside Goodrich, at junctions with upland and goodrich roads, 3-3:45pm. Experimental traffic order in Landcroft outside Harris Primary is made permanent. Slightly odd as the former decision seems to relate to the experimental order made last week and posted at https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/25844/School-Street-trials-winter-2-notice-dated-12-Nov-2020-.pdf. Landcroft one also slightly strange as the notice for it says it's making the original experimental closure permanent but the afternoon timeslot seems to have changed from 2-4 to 2:30 to 4:30. Maybe amended somewhere along the way? Not sure I want to check but not loving the idea of a precedent where unilateral tweaks are made without consultation when confirming an experimental order...

Croxted Road is an early loser. Plus all the motorists who?ve fallen victim to the poor signage on Gallery Road / Turney Road eastbound and Burbage towards the village... there were loads going through the bus gates at the roundabout this afternoon... I assume someone from the Council will be monitoring and will fix? Or is there any merit in emailing someone? I can?t imagine they want lots of unsolicited emails...?

So - last Tuesday I emailed the cabinet member for the Climate Emergency to ask which bodies were included on its Partnership Steering Group (basically the means of engaging the community) on climate emergency policies. I haven't had a response, so was thinking of putting in an FoI request, and while googling to get some exact wording - seems there is now a consultation on this issue, launched online on Friday. So that's good (although given I've signed up to every notification I can find on the Southwark site and haven't received a notification on this, less good). Anyway, here's the link to the consultation, I suggest everone spreads it far and wide as these are really important issues for all of us to consider, and the policies have lots of practical implications for people's everday lives. The consultation closes on 15 January. https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/climate-change-consultation/

Hi all, new order which includes making permanent what are described as existing trial point closures in Oakhurst Grove and Peckham Rye / The Gardens junction. https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/26605/ETMO-Review-notice-dated-19-Nov-2020-.pdf

Question (really for exdulwicher who seems likely to know) - is it me, or is there an awfully high percentage of estimated data in those data sheets? I'm not a statistician so don't really know what I'm looking at, but there seems like a lot more estimated data than actual count data happening (I was just looking at the Southwark one). Is that the case do you think? i ask that from an agnostic position as regards LTNS or anything else generally, it just seems like avilable data on this and air pollution isn't crash hot, which doesn't help either side of the debate. Does Southwark collect its own traffic data separately to inform itself or is the monitoring done centrally? If councils collect data does this get sent to dfT (and likewise TfL)? You'd hope that from an efficiency perspective all the data is pooled?

Thanks exdulwicher that looks really interesting.

Here's the Rachel Aldred report. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5d30896202a18c0001b49180/t/5fb246b254d7bd32ba4cec90/1605519046389/LTNs+for+all.pdf Reading it suggests to me that the Dulwich LTN doesn't really fit with her idea of where LTNs should go and what they are for: "Boroughs should consider equity when developing and prioritising LTNs,given that LTNs may particularly benefit people living without access to private greenspace or local safe public places for playing or socialising"... "Creating car-free and car-lite spaces in our neighbourhoods can be a low cost,rapid and efficient way to ensure that the many who have limited access to private gardens or urban parks,or who live in crowded flats or poor quality homes,can take a breath of fresh air,socialise maintaining a safe distance,play and exercise." "While measures to reduce car use and enable active travel have multiple co-benefits, some policy goals may pull against each other in the shorter term. If we were primarily interested in reducing car use,this might suggest we should prioritise LTNs in richer areas,where car ownership and use is highest.This would have equity implications,as the people and neighbourhoods who might most benefit from LTNs would then be left behind; although indirectly they may benefit from wealthier people driving less. We need to understand better how the impacts of active travel measures vary by area of introduction,and to ensure that equity is considered alongside environmental criteria as part of a wider long-term vision for greener and more equitable cities." The data bits of it aren't terribly helpful when it comes to assessing any particular LTN, as the conclusions are very general - they relate to the general "are LTNS automatically unfair" type argument rather than any particular case (if that makes sense)....

Actually redpost the online DfT statistics show that motor traffic in Southwark fell between 1999 and 2019 (and the Lambeth transport policy expressly acknowledges that there has been a significant reduction in motor traffic in Lambeth in the last 15 years). The point is more that it needs to fall more if we are to achieve our environmental goals. Edited to add: that Daily Mail article is hilarious - love the "frightening scene" at the Surbiton bus stop.

Hi peckhamside, you need to go to https://southwarkstreetspace.commonplace.is/ the main map is the one (I think) where you can comment on areas not currently part of schemes, and there are separate links where you can comment on the schemes that have already been put in. That's assuming you're in Southwark? I think Lambeth have something similar, not sure about Lewisham.

Well based on my pic above I'm wondering. When you see a new bus gate ahead of you, the sign saying restricted access "ahead" with a left arrow looks as though it's encouraging you to turn left, even if the sign is red. And there you are, caught by the second bus gate. There are going to be some very angry delivery drivers and builders about the place. PS have just looked at the underlying traffic order and it's a deliberate omission - there are clear "no turn" signs to be placed on Burbage heading eastward to Turney and on Turney heading away from the village to Burbage, but not on Turney heading towards the Village.

I don't think the Townley one is in operation yet - there are signs there which are still covered with black polythene so can't see what they say... I'm not sure why they're not all signposted the same way. If you go up Turney towards Burbage in the other direction there's a big sign saying no right turn except buses, taxis etc, which is a lot clearer. Maybe they forgot the sign for the other direction, the one I posted the pic of looks temporary?

Because you come up Turney and see the attached sign, with a bus gate ahead of you, turn left and the bus gate sign for Burbage is upon you, high up and difficult to see.

There are going to be a fair few people getting tickets for bus gate infringements..

I think you can go into and out of the Leafy LTN (is it Area A? Or B? I can never remember) via Court Lane or Eynella/ Woodwarde, off LL. I think you could also enter through townley from LL and turn left onto Dovercourt or Calton, before hitting the bus gate. I think you could also enter from EDG in either direction into Townley and then Calton or Dovercourt, but not exit in the reverse direction because of the gate.... Fully expecting to be corrected...

That could be it - to tell people you can?t do court lane/ side street/ Woodwarde road/ Calton ave/ townley / edg because of the townley bus gate. That?s quite a message to try and convey on one sign!!

Alice - agree. I personally think opening court lane is the key to a solution. The block on calton could stay: maybe a point closure at each end of woodward to stop rat running, and close off the side streets from court lane other than dovercourt, creating a slightly reduced LTN?

Or cars on court lane and cycles on woodward? Sally I agree with what you are saying in that removal of on street parking favours people with more expensive houses that have off street parking. But maybe no right to park on street if you have an off street car park?