legalalien

Agree heartblock. The recommendation about LTNs in the original report said this: "8Recommendation 14: Introduce a borough wide programme of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods. These should be implemented:  Over a wide enough area in order to realise the benefits of traffic evaporation, which has been shown to take place when there is a significant reduction of short journeys by car under 2km.  As a priority in areas with high levels of public transport (high PTAL ratings), poor air quality, lower levels of car ownership, in areas of deprivation and where the programs would impact positively on local schools and hospitals.  Where traffic may be displaced onto main roads, the council must monitor the impact on air quality, and mitigate negative effects in advance of implementation, possibly by widening pavements and creating cycle lanes, managing traffic to reduce vehicle idling time and introducing green screening programmes.  In conjunction with the introduction of CPZ and a reduction of parking so the kerbside can be utilised for active travel and public realm improvements (such as pocket parks and cycle parking.)  In conjunction with improvements to Public Transport and other work on adjacent main roads to increase cycling and other forms of active travel." I'm not convinced the Dulwich LTNs that Southwark have chosen really match the priorities in the recommendation (not that they have to). To be fair, although there's plenty of detail I don't agree with in the commission report, it is very clear on the need for "social justice" considerations, which I guess is what Councillor McAsh is now picking up on...

Was just having a look at the agenda for Southwark?s cabinet meeting on Tuesday which will consider the LTN petition. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=302&MId=6663&Ver=4 I?d advise people to read the report by Councillor Rose at item 23, http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s91336/Report%20Environment%20Scrutiny%20Commission%20Air%20quality%20response%20to%20the%20report%20considered%20at%20July%20cabi.pdf, this responds to recommendations by Southwark?s Environmental Scrutiny Commission?s Air Quality Report back in July, which includes some fairly controversial suggestions... Haven?t read the whole thing yet but did want to share the first paragraph of the conclusion of the commission?s air quality report: ?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? That, at least, I think we can all agree on. Edited to add link to report: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s89830/Scutiny%20report%20air%20quality%20FINAL.pdf

FYI: Redbridge have now scrapped their pilot due to residents? concerns, suggesting that insufficient consultation meant they didn?t get it right. https://www.redbridge.gov.uk/news/october-2020/redbridge-council-statement-quiet-streets/ Also some changes made to Lewisham/ Lee Green to address problems. https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/18800821.council-announces-changes-lewisham-lee-green-ltn/

Also: I think the reality of the discourse is that almost everyone on here thinks some measures are needed. It's just that many oppose the exact nature of the current ones on the basis that they weren't properly thought through in a joined up manner (as one of the councillors has expressly acknowleged) and are having an unacceptable and disproportionate negative effect on some residents (including schools) and road users - motorists, cyclists and pedestrians - on EDG particular. A different set of measures is needed.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > ----------- > > > So then, by default, you must recognise that > the > > closure (do stop using filtered - it's not > coffee > > and it makes you look a bit blinkered!!) of the > DV > > junction is having a major effect on other > roads > > due to the closure of the A205? > > The roads aren't closed though, they are filtered. > Every street can be driven on and to. Residents > can also use their cars, get deliveries etc., it?s > just not possible to drive straight through from > one main road to the next. There is no journey > which cannot be done by car as a result of the > LTNs (although routes may be less direct), so in > no sense are roads 'closed'. Some roads do get > closed / pedestrianised - but that's not what > we're talking about here. > > > > I had lunch on Lordship Lane today and the > traffic > > northbound was queuing all the way back to Mr > > Lui's from the Goose Green roundabout. > > So how what's the point you're making? This would > be helped by diverting traffic down court Lane, > through the village, down EDG to Lordship Lane and > then the Goose Green roundabout? Because I think > most people would probably just go straight down > Lordship Lane. Depends where they are going. If heading towards Herne Hill it would help considerably.

No, not confirmation bias, I think people are just commenting that blocking some of the larger roads off reduces redundancy in the network. That?s a fact. Whether or not that reduction in would solve/ partially solve issues in any particular instance is a different question and will depend on the incident causing the traffic problem, surely.

Have been keeping an eye on google maps this morning and watching the roads change colour. Interestingly, the process seems to start at on EDG at the Townley Road traffic lights, with traffic then extending back to Lordship Lane well before problems start anywhere else. I wonder if that?s always the case? The traffic problem on EDG seems to start a good 20 mins before it starts elsewhere.

Dulwich Common still closed this morning. It seems me pretty obvious that Court Lane needs to be reopened. Could then maybe close off the various side roads at the Court Lane end of them to discourage ?short trips? from within the area, and keep the closure on Calton Ave near Gilkes Place, but open Calton to traffic going from DV into Court Lane (admittedly this would disrupt the SUV waiting area that seems to have developed at the Calton end of Court Lane - it was raining yesterday and there were about 8 cars parked up/ idling while waiting for children...)

Exactly this. Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > James - Well done, you have listened and reacted > and we all appreciate that. Your post is clear and > I am glad to see that the council is taking an > area-wide view of the challenge now. > > We all want to see the pollution issue tackled and > I am hopeful that the council can bring all those > from all sides of the argument into the discussion > to come up with equitable solutions to tackle the > problem.

That sounds really positive. Has anyone thought about a rule that sets a maximum level of congestion / pollution for any given street?

Out of interest: does anyone know what approach One Dulwich/ anyone else who has concerns about some of the negative side effects of the current experimental orders, is taking to try and get variations made? Is it to try and get Southwark to reverse the closures and launch a consultation with a view to a different approach or is it to follow/ go along with the process that Southwark have set in motion ie ensure that a sensible/ nuanced range of objections are lodged before the December deadline for these? I would have thought the latter was the way forward: given the way in which the experimental orders came into place (to take advantage of central government funding), and the need for Southwark/ councillors to save face, a complete volte-face seems unlikely unless the emergency services step in to complain (as happened in Tooting). But I don't think I've seen any communications about the need to make objections and so forth. Objections would carry much more weight if they were thoughtful/ well supported/ nuanced and not just "we don't like these closures"? On a slightly depressing note, I had a good chat to the grocery delivery driver yesterday, he tells me that they have had to arrange significantly more delivery vans across the south of London as the existing ones are being stuck in traffic snarls caused by the LTNs (yes, I know, also caused in part no doubt by a COVID related up tick in traffic, but the main problems are on the main roads that have become congested as a result of the new barriers). He spent yesterday driving back and forth across south London "helping" other drivers by relieving them of one or two deliveries that would otherwise be super-late and delivering those. That seems far from ideal.

It looks from this (blog and subsequent comments from the author) that there isn?t yet a lot of hard evidence out there - in particular evidence that takes account the impact on neighbouring roads- but there are some ongoing studies. http://rachelaldred.org/research/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-evidence/

Don't think the green signs are official : https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2020/sep/03/road-closed-open-signs-low-traffic-neighbourhoods. The closures, as gazetted, apply to vehicles other than pedal cycles.

Dulwichgirl82 - I think it?s more an issue of the liberal elite in action at a local level. Those supporting the closures likely genuinely believe that at a macro level they are doing the best overall for society as a whole. They think that those complaining are unenlightened and probably a bit thick. That?s why their guidelines for local government (I?m still trying to get my head around the idea of lobby groups producing guidelines of this kind tbh) that say things like this: ?We keep asking residents to make decisions in the wrong place at the wrong time. Given that residents vote for politicians and policies across an area, we shouldn?t then repeatedly query those mandates on a street by street basis. It is for politicians and officers, as experts, to work out how to get more people cycling, whether more car parking is a public good or not etc. Residents should instead be empowered to make decisions that involve their specific expertise about where they live: which are the most important short trips, where should planters go, what happens at night on your street, etc. Our current approach means consultation all too often reinforces the status quo rather than promoting the change we (almost) all know we need.? The ?(almost)? really makes me bristle. Dulwichgirl82 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I?ve realised there?s a fundamental value > difference, I don?t feel that the more vulnerable > in > Society should be sacrificed to protect the more > affluent. The idea that ?something must be done? > and therefore even something harming people is > better than nothing is the issue. > There are other options some of which have Been > discussed In this thread. Something designed to > help everyone ESPECIALLY those most disadvantaged > is what is needed, not to protect the wealthy few > at the expense of others. > > > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Nigello Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Rah x 3 talks sense. > > > > > > .... if you happen to be so inclined to the > stuff > > they talk.... > > > > I think the majority actually want all road > users > > to be considered and not have a lot of roads > > closed to one section of road users....now > that's > > sense! > > > > It seems that anything other than an A road is > > considered by Rahrahrah as a side street and > > somehow should be for the exclusive use of > > cyclists only....

Dulwichgirl82, I suspect that the answer is that you?re basically collateral damage. The policy agenda seems to be driven by professional and well funded lobby groups who are focussed on the big picture: if a relatively small number of people on some roads have to suffer to enable the ?modal shift? then so be it. I suspect that given the degree of regulatory capture, the way forward is to appeal to the (local) democratically elected representatives. Southwark Cyclists have helpfully issued instructions to people wanting to lobby new cabinet members about how good the closures are - if anyone wants to pass on their views the info is here https://southwarkcyclists.org.uk/southwark-councils-new-cabinet/

Thought for the day from the London Cycling Campaign (under a picture of Calton Avenue in their free guide for local authorities on how to win their constituents over (https://s3.amazonaws.com/lcc_production_bucket/files/13729/original.pdf? ?Increasingly often, those against schemes use localised negative impacts, or even potential negative impacts, to try and derail or delay progress. They say that schemes will worsen pollution or congestion at one or two spots, on one road, or, most emotively, outside a particular school. It is entirely right that we do not tolerate worsening air quality in school classrooms, or for hospital patients, and it is right to aim to reduce congestion that is one of the causes of pollution. But if a scheme will, or is very likely to, significantly reduce overall motor traffic volumes, and therefore overall pollution levels, even if it also causes isolated negatives, should that derail the scheme? Those who say yes are doomed to oppose just about all progressive schemes. The ULEZ expansion, for instance, will likely worsen congestion and pollution outside the currently planned expansion zone. But does that make it a bad idea overall? Every scheme that takes bold steps to reduce motor traffic has some negative impacts. No scheme is perfect, but opposition to such schemes rarely, if ever, present any better ideas. The result of this opposition, indeed the aim, is to delay schemes by years, to dilute and weaken them, or to see them abandoned entirely. Instead, if a scheme is likely to, or does, worsen congestion or air pollution, it is crucial to commit in advance to mitigations, to developing and delivering further schemes as needed. The climate crisis alone demands that we move forward fast, fixing issues as we go. So, monitor the impacts of any scheme you build, mitigate any problems, and roll out the next scheme, learning as you go. The alternative is to continue to do nothing, or very little, in the face of growing, catastrophic crises.?

I think you can only challenge the legitimacy of experimental orders within 6 weeks though (as opposed to making substantive objections) - think I read that somewhere. Having fun googling. Interesting to see what the govt told local authorities about applications for funding - basically if you want funding then block roads off ASAP https://s3.amazonaws.com/lcc_production_bucket/files/13657/original.pdf?1590750305.

Actually it looks as though the orders are experimental orders under section 9 https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/3579196. Looks like a mid Dec deadline for objections? The government guidance is here https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/reallocating-road-space-in-response-to-covid-19-statutory-guidance-for-local-authorities/traffic-management-act-2004-network-management-in-response-to-covid-19. It does sound as though some of the consultation requirements may not have been met in all cases - but not sure what this means in practical terms. ?Authorities should seek input from stakeholders during the design phase. They should consult with the local chiefs of police and emergency services to ensure access is maintained where needed, for example to roads that are closed to motor traffic. Local businesses, including those temporarily closed, should be consulted to ensure proposals meet their needs when they re-open. Kerbside access should be enabled wherever possible for deliveries and servicing. The public sector equality duty still applies, and in making any changes to their road networks, authorities must consider the needs of disabled people and those with other protected characteristics. Accessibility requirements apply to temporary measures as they do to permanent ones.?

Well. It?s complex and expensive I suspect (challenging powers that be is ever thus). Is anyone in touch with those working on the case in Ealing? If not happy to track them down and give them a call. No need to reinvent the wheel...

Surely that can?t be right - the guidance linked specifically says that the Covid emergency regs can?t be used to bring forward previously planned works (which I thought many of these were)? Surely the argument in favour of them accepts that they were ?required in any event?? Apologies if I am missing something, only just started looking at all this stuff! ?There may be cases where planned works or schemes are being re-scheduled or brought forward as a result of the pandemic, for example, undertaking utility street works, repairing pot holes, implementing junction or road safety improvements during a time where traffic levels are lower. Bringing forward (or postponing) works that are required in any event is in itself unlikely to meet the test in regulation 18(1). An additional reason over and above timing is likely to be required for the order to fall within the meaning of ?purposes connected to coronavirus?. In these cases, it is likely to be more appropriate to use the existing temporary order procedure.?

The minutes about the reconstitution of the subcommittee are online https://dulwichsociety.com/pdf/executive-committee-minutes-20200511.pdf. Interestingly looks like they are keen to involve some East Dulwich reps, in case anyone is keen (also interesting re the decision not to sign the petition in favour of closing Melbourne Grove as some on the committee thought there had been a lack of consultation... )

I'm guessing train from Peckham Rye to North Dulwich and then walk (15-20 mins walk) is the best bet...

Ok - so thanks to Siouxsie - it's a girl. our sleepers look ancient and really decayed so I don't think I've poisoned her. Didn't realise the adult stage was so short. going to put out some over-ripe plums in case that helps. Fingers crossed she is on an egg laying mission.

Slightly random one. I suspect quite a few stag beetles live in our back garden. The garden part of it is a bit wild and there are some gradually rotting sleepers which I guess they like. We see them from time to time. This morning one of them was traversing the small astroturf bit in the middle of the garden. I relocated him or her to a woody bit. Four hours later he or she was back on the astro travelling in the other direction (same one, seems to have a small bit of paint on its back ). The neighbours are building a garden office at the moment and I wonder if he or she is a refugee? I've put him or her back in a woody bit again. Just went to check, has moved about a foot and is under a broken bit of sleeper snuffling at some wet leaves and waving legs and antennae around. Looks as though he or she is formulating a plan (probably to traverse the astro turf - back to the building site maybe?). Where should I be looking to relocate a confused stag beetle?

In Gilkes Crescent... Have had a PM describing a similar incident in SE23 a little earlier in the morning.