legalalien

Just had this letter from Southwark hand delivered through the letterbox (see pics)

Here's the YouTube link if anyone wants to watch http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/b50012333/Video%20Link%20YouTube%20Wednesday%2004-Nov-2020%2018.30%20Environment%20Scrutiny%20Commission.pdf?T=9 Date for the diary: the next Environmental Scrutiny Committee meeting is at 6pm on Wednesday 2 December. I'll request and post the link.

I had a quick look at one of his tweets claiming the Daily Mail was reporting last night a 34% increase in cars across London for last night versus the same night last year. It was actually reporting a 34% rise in congestion - not the same thing. Going off on a tangent, I really wish the school syllabus would include some practical info on (i) how to discern facts from opinion when reading things and (ii) basic statistics of the kind you see in the newspaper, and how to think critically about them. I was taught these things specifically in school way back in the day (hours of being made to read newspaper articles and go through and identify the facts and opinions in them). We hated it btw, but I think it was a useful exercise (and probably more useful than some of the stuff on the English curriculum...)

Remember to keep your pets inside tonight, to avoid them being stressed out by fireworks. We seem to have a massive ongoing display near us (surely something this big can't be private - are there any public ones?) and I had forgotten it was the 5th until the dog started going crazy at the bottom of the garden - managed to use bribery to get her inside but she's a bit freaked out.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > She was great and has had a Labour Councillor > wishing her a ?place in hell?. A cult! I missed the parliament thing yesterday but you can read it on Hansard https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2020-11-04/debates/5CA1BC02-327D-4ACC-B499-434E3FBFBEE5/Covid-19EmergencyTransportAndTravelMeasuresInLondonBoroughs I saw the twitter thing - I think the chap is one of the North London councillors - https://twitter.com/RupaHuq/status/1324015173565337608. Rupa's twitter account also has some video extracts from yesterday's hearing.

There was just a weird bit where Leanne and catherine mentioned being interviewed by the scrutiny commission and were silenced. Will re watch when the video goes up. FWIW I think Cllr Jason Ochere (who I had never heard of before today) did a great job today.

And has all ended a bit strangely with statements from Cllrs rose and Burgesaband then a plea for no parking for everyone. Fun times rewatching tomorrow :)

Let?s not get into a argument but all have a look at the recording in the morning with our confirmation biases in mind. Happy to admit I probably have one. Think we all do. And I think there?s a massive amount to be gained if we can all keep challenging each other?s views without drawing redlines . Old fashioned #gettingtoyes

I agree Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Interesting response from the charity lady that > no-one has done this level of detail before so > displacement is tough to judge but you can expect > displacement onto main roads but they think it > reduces over time. Their work is designed to prove > is definitively. > > She has been very impressive but I would also > challenge her assumption that sat navs will direct > people onto main roads when LTNs are implemented > following a question about displacement onto > residential roads. Sat Navs will find the clearest > route so not sure that stands up to scrutiny. The > sat nav algorithms will find the quickest route > whether they are main roads or residential roads. > Cllr Werner followed up on this point about what > work the council can do with sat nav companies. > > The question this call poses to me is why can a > charity do this and appear a hell of a lot more > professional than our council who seem to be > taking a very haphazard approach to these > measures?

Wtaf. Just had fire guy say they would have liked to be involved a bit more In the LTN thing and Margy has said she realised that the emergency services have not perhaps been involved as much as desirable in the dulwich thing and how could this be improved. It?s a statutory requirement for gods sake! May have misheard (confirmation bias), will listen again in the morning. They?ve just asked fire guys whether they have been consulted on everything - they say maybe on majority but some have been quite fluid.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cllr Graham Neale - claiming the council was being > ambushed by a small but vocal minority (he > reiterated that small but vocal minority twice) - > I presume he was referring to the 3 proposed areas > or more broadly? The small but vocal minority > seems to be a bit of a narrative the council is > trying to weave. Not sure on that one- Leanne asking about displacement now

That?s true. But what I?m hoping we are heading towards is more transparency from councillors about what they are asking for and why.. and other stuff. I do feel like compared to the last meeting there are more overt statements about why people would like info and where they are coming from. Cld be confirmation bias on my part ....

Which sound really organised and well set up / targeted / monitored - they?re spending 20% of the budget on proper evaluation so it can be modified / used as a template as appropriate.

No he?s referring to the three Guys etc schemes which don?t include dulwich

And the Southwark chap has just said that the guys and st Thomas schemes differ from the dulwich one in that they have proper before and after monitoring whereas the dulwich one doesn?t...

This is really good. There has been a whole new spiel about public participation (not sure anyone has attended the zoom meetings before)and now the councillors are introducing themselves. Transparency happening and will be available to people who can?t make the meeting, in recorded form.

Conspiracy :). Not at all. Southwark choose to consult Southwark Cyclists, presumably so they can get their views (although if there is a conspiracy, take their instructions!). Rather than complain about that, better to request they consult other groups as a matter of course eg residents associations, or maybe we should ask them to post on local bulletin boards like this? An RSS feed? We want more transparency, not less - I think so anyway. On that note, the Southwark Cyclists AGM is on next week (online) and open to all... https://southwarkcyclists.org.uk/events/southwark-cyclists-agm/

Agree. Although the idea of a box of votes sitting in a room in philly, awaiting a court decision to determine the outcome of the election, has lots of dramatic tension..☺️

there seems to be a bit of a toxic relationship: (I) trump loves winding the media up and making grandiose statements that are open to a wide range of interpretations, i think deliberately, and then each side reads into them what they want to (ii) the media is a bit hysterical and Trump may have a bit of a point when he says they don't always give the full picture. Take Trump's speech this morning and the bit about the Supreme Court. My first thought was that there probably isn't a way to go directly to the Supreme Court, there would have to be some lower level court proceedings first - so google and you find (in less than 5 mins) this helpful Guardian article from last week which describes the recent wranglings whereby the Democrat controlled State supreme court in Pennsylvania has authorised a change to state law permitting a three day extension post election day for postal votes; republicans appealed to the US supreme court for an emergency decision on this pre election but were denied in a 4-4 split, and the case still potentially remains to be heard. The votes concerned are being kept separate from the other votes in case this goes to court / is decided in favour of the republicans. I gather there's a constitutional issue as to whether state courts should be able to override state legislatures around voting rules. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/28/pennsylvania-elections-ballot-extension-supreme-court All the reporting makes it sound as though Trump just wants to put peoples votes in the bin for no reason, but surely some of the reporters must know about this background? Trump could have been more specific and avoiding the ensuing media storm - he no doubt has his own reasons for that. The polarisation of everything is just exhausting.

I see on Twitter that Ealing MP Dr Rupa Haq is raising the issue of the LTNs in Parliament today https://calendar.parliament.uk/

I actually have some empathy with the team that?s having to handle all this stuff. There?s an unusual volume of it you?d think - I?d be tearing my hair out! These detail focused tasks are a nightmare and I bet the people doing them aren?t terribly well paid / aren?t the people making the decisions. Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > legalalien Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > (at the risk of being slightly off topic - I > think > > 2(a) should refer to ED Grove not ED Road. > They > > might need a new sign... > > > > Question: is there a reason why they couldn't > > move the barrier at the GV end a bit further > > towards EDG, so that there is parking outside > the > > shops that can be accessed from GV but no > through > > route? Because that would seem like an obvious > > compromise. (Doesn't fix the problem of > traffic > > on EDG but not sure how much of that is caused > by > > these closures as opposed to the Dulwich > Village > > ones? > It shows they don't know what they are talking > about. At least proof read for goodness sake!

(at the risk of being slightly off topic - I think 2(a) should refer to ED Grove not ED Road. They might need a new sign... Question: is there a reason why they couldn't move the barrier at the GV end a bit further towards EDG, so that there is parking outside the shops that can be accessed from GV but no through route? Because that would seem like an obvious compromise. (Doesn't fix the problem of traffic on EDG but not sure how much of that is caused by these closures as opposed to the Dulwich Village ones?

Greater London Authority / Transport for London - Strategic Road Network A bit more background. Not 100% on this, but my best effort to figure out how TfL fits into this as regards main roads. TfL has responsibility for some main roads ?red routes? in London, and also has to be consulted on various matters affecting roads which are designated as Strategic Roads (scroll down to the bottom for info about what these are ? basically Lordship Lane locally). In response to a few FOI requests in relation to other London boroughs, the GLA has advised that ?The Mayor of London, through Transport for London, is working closely with London boroughs to create more space for people to walk and cycle safely as part of the Streetspace programme. The programme includes the creation of temporary cycle lanes on main roads, wider pavements on high-streets, and the creation of low-traffic neighbourhoods on residential streets. As part of this programme, boroughs submit bids to Transport for London for schemes that they wish to implement, which are then assessed against a range of criteria. There is more detail about how these assessments are carried out on the TfL website: https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/boroughs-and-communities/streetspace-funding TfL has provided funding to [borough] for a number of low-traffic neighbourhoods. Pages 7 and 8 of this guidance document set out the legal and regulatory processes of the Traffic Management Act that TfL and the boroughs use to assess and approve schemes such as low-traffic neighbourhoods when they are predicted to have an impact on either the Strategic Road Network, or the Transport for London Road Network: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/lsp-interim-borough-guidance-main-doc.pdf Where schemes are deemed to have impacts, TfL exercise these powers by reviewing proposals and providing recommendations on changes to ease traffic flow. The London Assembly has no powers to intervene in these schemes but can make representations to decision makers at councils and Transport for London, and to the Mayor.? 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. In other words if any experimental order made by Southwark was likely to affect Lordship Lane / Grove Vale it would have to be notified through this process- how this works for experimental orders is set out on page 8 of the guidance. I suspect both the experimental orders Dulwich Village and East Dulwich LTNs would meet that test so you would expect that TfL was notified ? not sure how you can find this out! TfL go on to say in the guidance that ?TfL expects that a borough would run the TMAN and traffic order processes in parallel for expediency and we will prioritise discussions and assessments for those schemes which deliver transport network improvements to support recovery from the COVID-19 emergency. TfL will not require any more information than that required by your own Borough Traffic Manager and commits to a pragmatic approach in our assessment of your plans. TfL will discuss options for assessing the impact of more complex proposals which ban movements and close roads when there is insufficient time to undertake a full traffic model assessment. TfL commit a timely turnaround of submissions to support expeditious on-street delivery.? So there?s a fast tracking process in place, but if a TMAN was submitted I think Southwark would have to provide some modelling of the potential effect on Lordship Lane and TfL would have to turn its mind to it. If anyone knows how to find this out other than through an FoI request, do tell! ____________________________________________________________________ The initial list of strategic roads was set out in the Schedule to The Traffic Management (Strategic Roads in Greater London) Designation Order 2005, see https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/476/schedule/made ?73. A2216 from its junction with Dulwich Common (A205) to its junction with Denmark Hill (A215) including Lordship Lane (part), Grove Vale, Dog Kennel Hill, Dulwich Road, Grove Lane and Champion Park, but excluding Lordship Lane between its junction with Dulwich Common (A205) and a point 15m north west of the party wall of 481 and 483 Lordship Lane.? It also includes the A2214 but only ?from its junction with Norwood Road (A215) to its junctions with Effra Road (A204) including Dulwich Road, Dalberg Road, Morval Road and Brixton Water Lane? ie not East Dulwich Grove/ East Dulwich Road as far as I can tell, although these were listed as Strategic Roads in the traffic management report linked further up this thread. The Mayor has power to make an order directing that a road become a strategic road, no idea how you find this out! But GLA comments on the hospital site in EDG from 2016 state that the nearest part of the SRN is 200m away, in Lordship Lane.

Just a reminder that this meeting is tomorrow evening, a supplemental document has been added to the website including a report from council officers on LTNs. I haven't read it yet, it looks to include a lot of summary/ background info and some info on three specific school based plans being funded by the Guys and St Thomas' charitable trust - focussed on schools in areas with high deprivation/ poor air quality. Includes Harris Peckham if anyone interested. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=6833

As I understand it the statutory consultation still has to take place for experimentals - this includes emergency services (see this link for the list) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/regulation/6/made