legalalien

I don?t drive at all so have walked and cycled in various combinations since forever. When I lived in places where there was less public transport I cycled more. In cities walking and decent public transport is much more convenient for me: partly because of weather (you get a lot less wet walking with an umbrella than you do cycling), partly because of flexibility (cycling requires you to take your bike in both directions on a trip), partly because I just can?t be bothered getting a bike out and putting it away. I?d like to see particular types of journey tackled specifically. So start, say, with short car journeys to schools. Make it impossible to park/ drop off near schools and those will stop pretty quickly. For those needing to make longer journeys, have a dropping point say 500m plus from the school. That will work for the longer journeys but dissuade the short ones. For work journeys, maybe hire bikes from stations to key nodes (the school drop off points even, then parents could take children to those and then bike to the station. Lots of small things rather than starting with lots of infrastructure focussed on long cycle journeys.

The agenda for this is now up. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=517&MId=6833&Ver=4 It includes an officer and partner update on Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, input from the Southwark Fire Service on the LTNs, cabinet feedback on the Commission's Air Quality report, and a scoping exercise for Part 2 of the Commission's work, the proposals for which include Reviewing effective implementation of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTN), by the council and partners, to ensure that they deliver better air quality for all Southwark citizens, particularly those residents most at risk from the adverse impacts of poor air quality (children, BAME people, older people, disabled people, people living in deprivation etc. With key issues including A Implementation of LTNs, including investigating how emissions on side roads and main roads are measured, as well as other areas with more vulnerable populations including schools, health and care settings. B Ensuring that LTNs are safe and that emergency services have been engaged to allow adequate access It's a zoom call. I don't think it will be broadcast live, usually there's a statement saying members of the public are welcome to attend, it doesn't say on this one. Will email the contact person and find out.

I agree heartblock. I think she was involved in the push to amend the LTNs in Lewisham? Anyway, I managed to watch the youtube of the 17 June Environment Scrutiny Commission meeting (Game of Thrones it wasn't). Interesting bit to watch (really!): from 15:19 where Cllr Livingston explains that a decision on the first 19 schemes has gone up on the website, not just in response to the streetscape/ commonplace input but also to cover some preplanned work. Cllr Werner (who is chairing) asks how the decision to prioritise those schemes was made and whether the council is looking at eg levels of pollution or deprivation - in response he refers to the fact that they have been working on the Dulwich and Walworth projects for some time but doesn't answer the actual question... Cllr Burgess comes back at about 29 mins to clarify with Cllr Livingston that when decisions are being made the council is prioritising areas of deprivation, poor air quality etc and BAME population given COVID. Gets fobbed off a bit and then says that they are looking at prioritising issues where the commonplace site (then) indicated a high degree of consensus. Cllrs Werner and Burgess take issue with this given lots of people don't have internet access etc . Some of the facial expressions are priceless. You also get to see Cllr Leeming's dinner. And then Cllr Werner expressly asks that going forward, Cllrs be provided with info about the criteria being taken into account in making these decisions. Takeaway points (my interpretation): Having Cllr Burgess more involved going forward is a good thing; some of the other Cllrs share the views of a number on this thread that some of the priorities given to date seem a bit suspect; those commonplace sites seem to be the main mechanism by which the council plans to assess how things are going. Cllr Werner has just published a piece on the Labour Environmental Group (SERA) website https://www.sera.org.uk/scrutiny_has_a_critical_role, describing the findings of the Commission as follows: "The commission?s findings show that it can no longer be acceptable for any transport schemes to be developed which cause increases in traffic volumes on other roads, particularly where there are vulnerable populations like schools and hospitals, and when we know those living in poverty, BAME populations and residents in areas of existing poor air quality are least able to cope with the effects of diseases like COVID-19. We must be driven with a proper scheme design: modelling the likely impacts of traffic interventions, understanding the communities who benefit and those who benefit least. This would mean an expansion of air quality monitoring throughout the borough with clear-eyed analysis of the outcomes. We need a proper understanding of where traffic is generated, who generates it and how it can be reduced; an understanding of car ownership volumes and consumption of street space. In all cases we need to gather sex-disaggregated data. This commission recommended that, in conjunction with TfL and the GLA, the council prioritises the dramatic reduction of traffic volumes in the borough, through a combination of incentives for those who do not own cars, disincentives for those with a car and improvements to neighbourhoods. This commission recognised the significant harm done by traffic emissions, and that this is a social justice issue. Those on low incomes are the least able to cope with poor air quality. Our strategic priority is the significant reduction in traffic volumes across the borough. Our principles of social justice and a strong dataset will guide our interventions in a systematic way. We should: prioritise those most in need and monitor all schemes for consequent harms, and where necessary, revise them. reclaim the use of the kerbside from parking for the few and instead transform it into a public amenity for the many. spend the next five years taking steps to making Southwark the cleanest and greenest borough in London."

This describes TfL funding sources / notes which programmes are and are not continuing. Haven?t got my head around it yet. https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/boroughs-and-communities/borough-funding

I think the current round of applications has now closed 12 https://www.southwark.gov.uk/engagement-and-consultations/grants-and-funding/neighbourhoods-fund-2021. Watching the last Environmental Scrutiny meeting. Instructive. Not much dissent, a little bit from the chap who I?ve just realised is the Lib Dem in the room (highlight - telling people that they shouldn?t try and eat the whole elephant at once). Led me to read this prophetic article https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/end-road-looms-formal-traffic-decision-making-community-councils-according-southwark-council-plans/ There?s an interesting issue about getting hold of and comparing data about parking on estates and off street parking and a ward by ward comparison. Will see if I can figure it out.

Environmental Scrutiny Commission The next meeting of Southwark's Environmental Scrutiny Commission is on Wednesday 4 November at 6:30pm. The agenda is now up http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=517&MId=6833&Ver=4. The last meeting, back in July, was online so I expect people will be able to contact Southwark in advance and ask to join. At the last meeting they discussed and finalised the Air Quality Report (which I've linked to previously and deals with matters including LTN issues) and the Climate Emergency Report, so I imagine similar issues will be raised at this meeting. All the info from the last meeting (including the final reports) is at http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=517&MId=6764&Ver=4. The Air Quality report has an appendix showing relative pollution levels across Southwark (in 2016) which I know various people have been asking about. Appendix 2 includes information about car /vehicle ownership and access. On the climate emergency front there is an input report from Extinction Rebellion Southwark. The video of the last meeting can be watched at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rV9VJJtNnM. Only watched the first 10 mins so far but looks quite useful to get a feel of current strategy on traffic/ parking etc. Edited to add: don?t want to sidetrack this but if anyone else is interested in following up and not already aware of the arguments: there?s apparently a conflict going on between local authorities who have set zero carbon targets more ambitious than central government, and central government refusing to fund their plans (Extinction Rebellion supporting the former). See https://extinctionrebellion.uk/2020/02/06/local-rebellion-why-xr-local-groups-building-experts-and-councillors-are-joining-voices-to-defend-local-powers/. Maybe deserves its own thread if anyone wants to discuss! Edited to add link to summary of Commission's findings by Cllr Werner: https://www.sera.org.uk/scrutiny_has_a_critical_role

For those who aren't aware (I wasn't), the various "multi-ward" areas have facebook pages where they post info they think relevant to their areas, which people might want to consider following. Having trouble linking them but if you go to facebook and search for "empowering dulwich hill" and "empowering rye lane" ,they should come up.

Assuming the recommendations to the South multiward meeting on 25 Feb were approved (I can't find the decision / minutes anywhere), Southwark are actually funding Clean Air for Dulwich to campaign in favour of LTNs, out of the Neighbourhoods Fund. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/g6618/Public%20reports%20pack%20Tuesday%2025-Feb-2020%2019.00%20South%20multi-ward%20forum.pdf?T=10 You could squeeze clean air campaigning into the criteria at a push (maybe, it's not really the same as getting volunteers for a local clean up) but generally campaigning groups haven't been included before as far as I know, and certainly not funded to advocate specific council policies!

Something interesting I just came across - there's a government consultation out on the Highways Code (comments close tomorrow). The aim is to improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists. Headline point: the plan is to introduce a hierarchy of road users, essentially everyone has to be careful of those more vulnerable than them on the road. This includes guidance (rather than a hard rule) for motorists and cyclists to give way to pedestrians waiting to cross roads that they are turning out of or in to (whether or not they have started crossing). There are various changes to rules around cycle safety, these include some changes for cyclists as well as drivers (for example the current "no more than two abreast" rule is proposed to go but be replaced with a rule that cyclists must ride single file when drivers wish to overtake and it is safe to do so. There is a proposal to introduce the "dutch reach" when opening car doors. Also a new proposed provision that pedestrians may use any part of the road and use cycle tracks as well as the pavement, unless there are signs prohibiting pedestrians. (At the moment the way the Code reads people shouldn't be using roads a play streets, I don't think, including that bit at the Calton junction, as it's still a road open to cyclists, although I don't think there's a penalty for this (I guess would give a cyclist a good defence if he or she hit one of the pedestrians). Interestingly the document includes a link to the rule about not riding on footpaths which seems to date back to 1835! https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Will4/5-6/50/section/72 (There's also a bit in the Highway Code specific to cyclists which links to the ?500 fine). ("Carriages in the Act was extended to bicycles, tricycles and "velocipedes" in 1888. Anyway, if anyone is interested have a read and get comments in (online) today/tomorrow. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/904038/consultation-on-a-review-of-the-highway-code.pdf

Have pondered but can?t at all see how the Marie Antoinette analogy works. Unless it?s that those in the areas FTG refers to are asking to have the air quality that Dulwich Village has always enjoyed, Dulwich Village proposes to do nothing, and suggests they sort their own thing out by having excellent air quality schemes at their own expense? Not really the same thing though, is it? Because Marie Antoinette wasn?t turning down a bread to brioche upgrade in favour of purchasing brioche (or bread even) for others?

YY to turning heating down and also if you have central heating don?t turn it all at all until you really need it. Turn lights, screens, anything else off in rooms that you aren?t in. Not really an eco tip but if you put vinegar in a plastic bag, put it over your shower head, secure with a rubber band and leave it for a bit, it gets all the lime scale off. Avoid beauty products, stay away from synthetic fabrics.

I definitely saw a group in Brockwell Park yesterday. Going for a run shortly so will see whether I can see a sign up anywhere. Looks like these guys are there https://www.fisonfitness.co.uk/contact from a quick google. Edited to add: had a look at the two nearest noticeboard to the tarmac area at brockwell but nothing there.

1. Stop making everything about cycling. Constant emphasis about how we?re all supposed to cycle everywhere weakens the core message of reducing traffic in my opinion. For lots of people walking or public transport are much more feasible solutions (I know, COVID but that won?t be for ever). The aim is to reduce car journeys, not to get everyone on a bike. One current outcome of the local LTN is much more air pollution on EDG which is a key pedestrian route and hard to find an alternative to. People who can?t or don?t want to cycle see LTNs as something ?not for them?. 2. An initial focus on things everyone can agree on eg timed school streets. This thing needs to be done with popular consent. 3. Proper pollution monitoring and need to move quickly to make whatever adjustments are needed to protect the health of those on main roads. That should have been done first. 4. If you walk to the shop your bike won?t be stolen 😂

As a complete aside, apparently local newspapers are significantly dependent on revenues from TMO publications (see this Commons briefing note https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06013/SN06013.pdf. Cost estimates are between ?1k and ?3k per order. Gosh.

They hadn?t put the signs/ cameras in then (yet!) so you?ll be fine!

Interesting to hear what the guy from One Lewisham has to say here (towards the end of the article) - he is pro-cycling but anti-LTN. https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7aqj8/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-islington-protest?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB

TMOs/ decisions to be turned into TMOs shortly: Calton Avenue/ Court Lane / Melbourne Grove South: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/12765/LSP-Dulwich-Trials-notice-dated-18-June-2020-.pdf plus minor modification at https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/22828/LSP-Dulwich-modification-notice-dated-15-Oct-2020-.pdf and proposal for blue badge parking https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/22827/LSP-Dulwich-DPPP-proposal-notice-dated-15-Oct-2020-.pdf Extension of Champion Hill trial/ experimental order: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/15739/Champion-Hill-trial-ext-notice-dated-6-August-2020-.pdf East Dulwich - Melbourne/Elsie/Derwent etc: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/17090/LSP-East-Dulwich-trials-notice-dated-20-Aug-2020-.pdf Goodrich point closure and double yellows/ loading restrictions near Goodrich/Heber/St Anthonys https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/17093/LSP-Schools-notice-dated-20-Aug-2020-.pdf Dulwich Village/Burbage/Turney/ Townley https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/22829/LSP-Dulwich-trial-Phase-2-notice-dated-15-Oct-2020-.pdf Peckham Rye / East Dulwich Road / Nunhead Road/ Scylla Road https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/22825/LSP-Peckham-Rye-trial-notice-dated-15-Oct-2020-.pdf Various school streets and double yellow lines: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=7190

I have commented but haven't had any updates. I suspect it's done scheme by scheme (so if eg you comment on the east dulwich one you just get feedback on that one)?

I'll post the links to the existing orders / decisions on here later, but just a quick heads up that a decision on "Batch 5" is due next month. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50023739&PlanId=634, as well as School Streets Batch 3.http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50024103&PlanId=635. And then in January, Minor Traffic Schemes 20/21 Batch 2 (you will recall batch 1 contained a number of permanent double yellow lines plus experimental orders for various school streets). No supporting documents posted yet so I don't think there's a way of knowing what it relates to...anyone know?

Another relevant document: the Code of Conduct applicable to Councillors which explains their role / responsibilities in representing their constituents: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/8861/Code-of-conduct_May-2014.pdf (Relevance and complaints procedure at https://www.southwark.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/councillors-and-mps/your-councillors?chapter=2 )

😂😂😂 (Pronouns: she/ her)

Get off my neutral thread you lot! 😁

This kind of sums up where we are. On the one hand, we have a group who feel strongly about the need to address climate change / problems with air quality and who have lost faith in the ability of the democratic process to deliver solutions (at all or in the necessary time frame). Hence the need to take advantage of any opportunity to move at speed, briefing notes about how to capture councillors and the need to time things to avoid accountability in the electoral cycle; the idea that ?the masses? need to be kept out of the process (with the idea that they?ll be happy with the end result, they just can?t be counted on to make the right choices in the here and now). I don?t think it?s a coincidence that recent polling shows the younger generation has less faith in democracy generally. On the other, people who place more importance on the democratic process / transparency/ bringing people along with you, ensuring long term solutions don?t deliver unacceptable (as opposed to inconvenient) short term effects. And possibly the idea that failing to achieve mass buy in puts the project as a whole at risk, because there will be a backlash from said masses. Despite what some people are saying I think the debate on here is mostly about means rather than ends. Almost everyone is keen on traffic reduction/ improved air quality etc. On that note, can I suggest everyone turns their thermostats down a couple of degrees as gas boilers are one of the biggest sources of air pollution, and even small adjustments will make a meaningful difference. malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Then you should realise that as the masses will > not break their habits tougher action is required. > It will take a little time for these measures to > have an effect but you have to make it more > difficult for motorists to dissuade some of the > unimportant journeys. Pollution is a short term > and local issue, climate change will affect us for > ever.

Central government advice /funding in response to COVID In response to the COVID lockdown, central government (Department for Transport) gave local authorities statutory guidance as regards reallocating road space. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/reallocating-road-space-in-response-to-covid-19-statutory-guidance-for-local-authorities. The foreword suggests it is a once in a generation opportunity to deliver a lasting transformative change in how we make short journeys in our towns and cities and enjoins local authorities to make significant changes to their road layouts to give more space to cyclists and pedestrians. The guidance says that local authorities ?should take measures to reallocate road space to people walking and cycling, both to encourage active travel and to enable social distancing during restart (social distancing in this context primarily refers to the need for people to stay 2 metres apart where possible when outdoors? Measures should be taken as swiftly as possible, and in any event within weeks, given the urgent need to change travel habits before the restart takes full effect.? The Department of Transport wrote to London boroughs on 28 May describing the first tranche of funding that would be provided to support this: https://s3.amazonaws.com/lcc_production_bucket/files/13657/original.pdf?1590750305. The emphasis was on speed and there is a reference to temporary traffic orders, but the funding isn?t just linked to temporary orders. (Note that the early LTN closures at Calton Avenue and Melbourne Grove are experimental orders, not some kind of temporary/ emergency order, to avoid any confusion). The letter says that ?If work has not started within four weeks of receiving your allocation under this tranche of funding, or has not been completed within eight weeks of starting, the Department will reserve the right to claw the funding back by adjusting downwards a future grant payment to your authority. This is also likely to have a material impact on your ability to secure any funding in tranche 2.? Bids for Tranche 2 funding were invited on 10 July: https://www.cyclescape.org/media/W1siZiIsIm1lc3NhZ2VfZG9jdW1lbnRzLzA1NS9lNjQvMDU1ZTY0MzI1MGMzYWVmZGNhZDYwODJiNDY1NTA5YTBhNWU3ODYzMiJdXQ/200708%20Letter%20-%20T2%20invitation%20letter%20FINAL%20UPDATED.PDF?sha=a2f950bd822714e4. This letter indicates the types of projects that are eligible for funding (note that Southwark doesn?t bid directly but is involved in a London wide funding allocation process). On October 16 the Minister wrote to local authorities reminding them of the need to balance the needs of cyclists/ pedestrians and motorists ? see https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2020/10/18/transport-secretary-grant-shapps-u-turns-on-cycling-revolution-urging-councils-to-again-prioritize-motorists/#20600c041152 (haven?t located a copy of the actual letter yet).

Other important documents There are some other important documents to be aware of because they set out overarching policy goals: Movement Plan (2019) at https://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy-and-transport-policy/transport-policy/policy-and-guidance-documents/movement-plan which sets out the council?s overall approach to travel for the next twenty years ? this is intended to be a ?living document?. Worth a read, it sets out the various policy goals for traffic reduction, use of streets, active travel etc. Climate Emergency: Southwark declared a climate emergency in March 2019 and are taking a number of steps as a result, including around School Streets and air quality https://www.southwark.gov.uk/environment/climate-emergency?chapter=5. Policies to address the climate emergency inform things like the New Southwark Plan (setting out planning policy): https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-regeneration/changes-to-new-southwark-plan/ as well as individual decisions.