legalalien

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.thesun.co.uk/news/10312320/driver-fined-pulling-bus-lane-ambulance/amp/ https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/uk/594449/Lynne-Plaxman-Fine-Council-Bus-Lane-Parking-Number-Plate-Recognition-Ambulance-Hull/amp It does clearly happen. I always thought the point was that it is best to try and leave the bus lane clear so that the ambulance can use it?

Not sure this is useful as it doesn?t cover London, but in case... https://www.ttf.uk.net/

Pages 20 and 36

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s89830/Scutiny%20report%20air%20quality%20FINAL.pdf - from July. I believe these are the recommendations that the councillor is responding to...

I was hoping not to post this but I can't for the life of me figure out how to sign up to some kind of Southwark news feed that will get this stuff to me. I've been to the home page, the democracy page and the engagement and consultations page but I am missing something. I've worked out that I am already signed up to an electronic version of "Southwark Life" by all accounts, even though I know for a fact that I have never received one. I'm genuinely not trying to make a point here- I just can't find what I'm supposed to do. Can anyone help? TIA

Metallic - I will go and register on the website now if I can figure out where to do so - but I still don't think that's the answer. It's never been suggested to me before that I should register on a council website in order to be informed of major decisions like this - that's the whole point of mandating consultation in the normal course of things. Where something is being done that would usually be consulted on, I'd expect councillors to take the initiative to make sure that their constituents are aware of it - say a flyer through post boxes, saying "we've put these experimental things in place, if you don't like them, you need to do X by Y date". I get your point that this costs money, but it is still the right thing to do because they must know what proportion of people (and where presumably) have signed up for online info and I suspect it's far from everyone (I'd be interested to see some figures on that - more googling needed!) I find the whole thing quite bizarre, but possibly because I grew up in a place where almost all local councillors were independent, the population was much smaller, and the level of engagement was accordingly much higher. We learn from our mistakes. As it happens, I think I might sign up to support a campaign for proportional representation in local government. If anyone knows anything about such things, by all means send me a message!

It would be good if the councillors could take another good hard look at some of the caveats in the Commission report rather than just the recommendations. Here is another one: "The demand for School Streets is high and there are over 30 schools in the borough on the waiting list. School Streets are highly popular with parents and children; however, the drawback is that they only cover a very small area and only a part of the journey to school. We have found the process and criteria for selecting which schools are chosen is not clear, for example if the area has high pollution levels or high levels of deprivation. We need to consider how decisions are made as it is often the local residents who have the means, time and the knowhow who are able to influence council decisions such as targeting side roads. There is also evidence that the closure of side roads, and other small schemes, do not reduce air pollution exposure for the people on main roads who are at greatest risk. There are certain criteria that must be met for traffic evaporation to take place effectively, a fact that is often overlooked by policy makers. If drivers can find an alternative route where levels of congestion are acceptable, they will continue to drive. If alternatives like cycling are deemed unsafe due to lack of protected cycleways or if there is insufficient space on public transport (as is the case at the moment due to the need for social distancing) then those with access to vehicles will continue to drive, increasing traffic congestion and air pollution on boundary/main roads. While the Commission welcomed these local initiatives, on the whole, there was concern that the operational activity to deliver the positive ambitions of the Movement Plan lacked a coherent programme. The Commission discovered deprivation data sitting behind the plan, but this was not referred to by the officers in the meeting and there was no evidence that this is being used to drive funding decisions in a systematic way. There is a risk that pockets of good practice will emerge only in places with the most vocal activists or in areas of large-scale regeneration, but these will not necessarily be the places with the greatest objective needs or that they will deliver the changes which will benefit the majority population. Furthermore, hyper local changes are most likely to cause unintended outcomes with displaced traffic, rather than the win- win outcome of traffic reducing overall (on both the neighbourhoods roads where through traffic had been removed AND adjacent main roads where traffic has evaporated." This is the main point that lots of us are making based on the evidence of our own eyes.

Sadly Rockets I suspect you are right. Given the somewhat draconian nature of experimental traffic orders, I would expect councillors to be proactive in ensuring those ?outside the bubble? were made aware of the limited inputs they might be able to make in a proactive way ie not just following whatever bare minimum rules exist to publish things on websites. Most people don?t have the time or resources to spend their hours trawling through this stuff on the local authority website.

On the objections point - this is not an area I know much about, but if mr google is to be believed, it doesn?t sound as though there is a discrete list of grounds for objections. I think these Regs apply https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/contents/made The wording in the orders is as follows (this one specific to the Melbourne grove etc ones) ?The council will in due course be considering whether the provisions of the experimental order/s should be continued in force indefinitely, by means of a permanent order made under section 6 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Anyone wishing to object to the making of the permanent orders or make any other representation regarding the scheme would have 6 months to do so, from the date the experimental order comes into force (or, if the order is varied by a subsequent order or modified pursuant to section 10(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, from the date that variation order or modification comes into force), and may send a statement to [email protected] or to: Traffic Order consultations, Highways, Southwark Council, Environment and Leisure, P.O. Box 64529, London SE1P 5LX; or use the form labelled 'Parking - Road traffic and highway schemes - responding to statutory consultation notices' at www.southwark.gov.uk/statutoryconsultationnotices quoting reference ?TMO2021-EXP10_LSP E Dulwich?. Please note that if you wish to object to the scheme you must state the grounds on which your objection is made.? They really don?t make it easy for the average person in the street tbh.

This is how one of the other local authorities describes the process ?Once the consultation period has closed all comments received will be reviewed and these will be reported to the Ward Councillors and Cabinet Member (where appropriate) for consideration of the next steps. A decision will be made on whether to continue the Order on a permanent basis. If formal objections are received they will be considered by Officers but the final decision on whether to proceed will be made by the Cabinet Member (the elected Councillor whose portfolio includes responsibility for parking) or Head of Highways & Transport under delegated authority.? Mass campaign of objections, anyone?

I don?t think that ?consider people?s views? means consult in this context. I think it means they will consider any formal objections lodged within the initial six months of the order (as the experimental order process requires) and then move straight to permanent decision. I also doubt they?ll write widely to people explaining that they have to put objections in within six months if they want their thoughts to be considered at all. Is that others? understanding? It would be good if someone from Southwark could confirm this is the process (or clarify if not)...

The length of the diversion, which sends people through an already congested Herne Hill and EDG, says it all. It's the reverse of what I was suggesting yesterday when I theorised that tail backs of traffic on Lordship Lane were of people trying to get to Herne Hill and back onto the south circular....

It says it?s live-streaming on YouTube Venue: Online. This meeting will be livestreamed on Southwark Council's YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/user/southwarkcouncil. Not sure if I?ll tune in to this. Only started reading up about this stuff very recently - and I don?t think it?s good for my blood pressure... is anyone else tuning in / participating eg in support of the petition?

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/