legalalien

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?

The thing is though, that to fix the EDG and LL congestion, then surely Court Lane needs to be open precisely AT peak times (to take pressure off those routes)?

I think maybe Juno means Living Streets Dulwich which is one of the other campaign groups?

For info - there's a Council Assembly meeting on 25 November, the theme is Southwark's response to the pandemic, but there's also a Member question time where council members can each ask a question of a cabinet member. Two of the Lib Dem councillors are asking (i) about adequate consultation / adequate response to the 2500 LTN petition and (ii) about what air quality monitoring will be carried out. List of questions here: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s92008/Report%20Members%20question%20time.pdf There's also an interesting motion on transport from cllr Damian O'Brien here: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s92009/Report%20Members%20Motions.pdf, essentially saying that because TfL has deprioritised various public transport initiatives Southwark won't be able to meet its current traffic reduction targets and that these need to be rethought "with expert input from leading external visionaries to identify new approaches given the changes in priorities of TfL, and provide a comprehensive update in the next 3 months containing annual targets for reducing annual road traffic and improving air quality. This should also include assessing the impact on different communities and Council income." Sounds like he might have road user charging in mind? Lots of other really interesting stuff too. Will be livestreamed on youtube. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=6773

I always have a non-confrontational chat with the JW ladies when they turn up. When I was a child, some JW used to come to our house every week. My father, who was a confirmed atheist, took a copy of their edition of the bible and used to argue with the lady every week. She came back each week because she felt he challenged her faith, and she gained from that. There were some issues at my house and she used to take me to her home for the day sometimes when it was necessary. I'm still grateful for that. So maybe I have a soft spot. I was quite pleased to receive my handwritten letter. I might not agree with lots of the JW stuff (I'm not at all religious) but it's great that people who really believe in something reach out, and I think the people on the ground are largely well intentioned. We can agree to differ.

Not mine. The Guardian's cycling columnist, who is a cycling lobbyist himself, and Manchester's cycling czar don't get to decide who is and isn't a "vociferous minority" or a "noisy dissident". That's just emotive language to put their own spin on it. Yes, surveys show people are in favour of measures discouraging car usage. I'd say yes to the questions posed myself - as would many other opponents of the Dulwich road blocks on this thread - we are people who agree in principle with the idea but think there are problems with implementation in this particular case. Given the government has updated their advice to make it clear that ALL road users, and businesses, need to be consulted against the threat of claw back.... I think it might be some other people who will be scrambling around in response. Hopefully there is room for some sensible modification/ compromise.

On the basis it's always better to go to the primary source material, here's the link to the DoT announcement, which also includes a link to updated statutory guidance on councils' network management duties. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/175-million-more-for-cycling-and-walking-as-research-shows-public-support. Good to see that there is a clear message being given about the importance of consultation: "the Transport Secretary has set tough new conditions on councils receiving funding, requiring them to ensure schemes are properly consulted on. This will help avoid the problems seen in a minority of the schemes developed in the first round of funding. If these conditions are not met by a council, the Transport Secretary has been clear that future funding allocations will be reduced and claw-backs could also be imposed." and "As part of the Transport Secretary?s plan to ensure councils develop schemes that work for their communities, he has set out they must: publish plans to show how they will consult their communities, including residents, businesses and emergency services, among others show evidence of appropriate consultation prior to schemes being implemented submit monitoring reports on the implementation of schemes 6-12 months after their opening, highlighting how schemes have been modified based on local feedback to ensure they work for communities." Not exactly sure whether/ how this impacts LTNS already installed, but the guidance on experimental orders does say this in relation to experimental orders: "Authorities must put in place monitoring arrangements, and carry out ongoing consultation once the measure is built. Although the initial implementation period can be quick, local residents and businesses should still be given an opportunity to comment on proposed changes, and the need for extra monitoring and consultation afterwards can make them a more onerous process overall. Schemes installed using experimental orders are subject to a requirement for ongoing consultation for 6 months once in place, with statutory consultees including bus operators, emergency services and freight industry representatives. This consultation allows a trial scheme to be adjusted in the light of experience and feedback, which can lead to a better scheme overall. Schemes should be monitored and evaluated to help make decisions as to whether the scheme should be made permanent, and if so in what form." From what Cllr McAsh said on the other thread, it sounds as though the council will put in place a formal monitoring and evaluation framework to meet these requirements. Hopefully we'll get visibility of it. The challenge is going to be how to do accurate monitoring on the early closures given we've been locked down. The one thing in the report that made me smile was the guidance that it was not a good idea to put an immovable concrete block over an area with utilities under it as it made it impossible for utilities providers to gain access/ do repairs. Sounds like that's something that must have happened somewhere. You can just imagine the reaction of the folk in the utilities van when they turned up at the location....

Thanks nxjen I wasn?t quite sure of the protocol!

Just saw this on a Southwark newsletter. "The Council is committed to creating more opportunities for community gardening and food growing and is launching an Allotment Expansion Guarantee in 2021. If you live on or near a Southwark Council estate and you would like to create new food growing plots, the council can support you. The Community Gardening Coordinators will work with groups of residents to plan, build and run growing spaces on LBS land. Tell us about where your community would like to grow food and we'll be in touch as the campaign launches. Enter your email below and we'll let you know when this Commonplace is ready." The interactive site hasn't launched yet but you can register to be notified when it launches. https://allotmentexpansionguarantee.commonplace.is/?utm_content=&utm_medium=email&utm_name=&utm_source=govdelivery&utm_term= (Am conscious I have started a couple of new threads today. Having signed up to a whole bunch of council alerts I keep coming across things that I think people might be interested in. If I get boring someone tell me to stop!)

For anyone with an interest in Southwark school places and some time on their hands, this is a really interesting read http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s91339/Report%20Pupil%20place%20planning%20report.pdf Lots of info about trends in different areas (there's significant overcapacity in primary school places across the borough - a lot of it in the north west as a result of regeneration projects it seems- but more generally as well. The appendices include a useful list and map of all the Southwark schools, info about what chains they are linked to, and which schools in Southwark and relevant neighbouring boroughs are planning to expand/ contract their numbers in the near future. Also some info about where expansion of SEND provision is planned. And some info about demand for the various secondary schools.

Not just us then. Our wood pigeons and robin (and some thrushes) have disappeared but we seem to have gained some blackbirds and some sort of small tits (not an expert - great tits or coal tits maybe)?

Description of closure: Goodrich Community Primary School, the part of DUNSTANS ROAD between its junctions with Goodrich Road and Mount Adon Park/Upland Road during term time (Monday to Friday 3:00 pm ? 3:45 pm) which will be physically enforced with traffic signs and the installation of temporary barriers located (i) at a point 1 metre south-west of the south-western kerb-line of Goodrich Road and (ii) at a point 7 metres north-east of the north-eastern kerb-line of Mount Adon Park;

So - I emailed first thing this morning to ask and they?ve made the traffic order and put it on the website today. Link here https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/25844/School-Street-trials-winter-2-notice-dated-12-Nov-2020-.pdf

Just on the PS - funnily enough, the SE5 group lady started her presentation at the OSC meeting earlier in the week with some strong words about just how much better Lambeth are to deal with in terms of transparency/ strategy/ organisation/ consulting the community, compared to Southwark. Lambeth have a really good website explaining to people what they are doing and why. It would really have helped Southwark if they had taken a similar approach. https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/better-fairer-lambeth/lambeth-transport-strategy-transport-strategy-implementation-plan