LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Metallic]

The Council Plan from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee 9th November set out seven ?vision statements? that are at the heart of what they want to achieve for Southwark. These are:

 The best start in life: clean air, great schools and an opportunity to thrive

 The quality homes that you and your family need

 Fighting for you, on your side in challenging and uncertain times. ***But not answering any emails or questions sent in, and certainly not in any way modifying the plans.

 A great place to live with clean, green and safe communities

 A healthy borough where your background doesn?t determine your life chances.

 Full employment, where everyone has the skills to play a full part in our economy. ***But not caring about anyone who has a small business in any of the roads suffering displaced traffic, so if the business goes bust, oh well, blame the motorists.

 A modern efficient council: working with the community, listening to residents and open to you. *** Unless you want an answer to any query or suggestion made to make the schemes more equitable. But certainly hoping to coin it like Lewisham has done, with plenty of money from penalty charges, which we can spend on, um, um........

*** my response

[Bicknell]

People who live round here just beginning to realize they will be fined ?130 if they drive through resrictions on Townley, DV, Burbage or Turney...

[Rockets]

Bicknell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> People who live round here just beginning to

> realize they will be fined ?130 if they drive

> through resrictions on Townley, DV, Burbage or

> Turney...

I wonder how many of the 47,000 drivers who got a fine in Lewisham in the space of a month or so driving through LTNs were local residents who were caught out just driving home.

Going to be a lot of disgruntled people very soon....did Lewisham categorise the 47,000 as a small, vocal minority perhaps....;-)

[Clutterqueen]

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Found an interview with London?s Walking & Cycling

> Commissioner, Will Norman.

>

> https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2020/11/09/the-streets

> blog-interview-will-norman/

The man is a walking (or should I say cycling) nightmare! He seems to have the authority to do whatever he wants re street closures and cycling issues all over London.

[Clutterqueen]

Anyone else noticed the hard line cyclists lane posts that have gone up alongside the junction leading up to Village Way from Dulwich Village over the past week? Seemed to appear overnight. Now the traffic flow from Dulwich Village and before is now blocked by another silly plan and vehicles are rammed into one lane of traffic where it used to be two lanes.

The P4 bus timetable has dramatically been hit by this over the past couple of weeks. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the powers that be will create a no left turn onto Village Way by cars (but of course cyclists).

[malumbu]

Here's a nice article about closing roads and the evaporation of traffic. It's from 1998 but from a proper scientific publication. Interesting that they refer to potential pedestrianisation of Trafalgar Square. I remember the massive resistance to that from drivers and cabbies. Would we ever go back to having a road in front of the National Gallery? Hope you all appreciate the counter argument. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15721180-200-roadblocks-ahead/

[legalalien]

I was interested to see in the most recent decision notice that ?Concerns were raised regarding the additional time required to collect waste due to closures being proposed as part of the GSTTC and wider Southwark LSP schemes.? I was reflecting on that the other day - presumably Veolia have contractual service levels - I wonder if they made these dependent on there not being lots of road closures or not? It would be an easy thing for them to miss. I guess with a 25 year contract they must have given themselves some wriggle room on the traffic / road configuration front.

Just idle speculation.

[Metallic]

malumbu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Here's a nice article about closing roads and the

> evaporation of traffic. It's from 1998 but from a

> proper scientific publication. Interesting that

> they refer to potential pedestrianisation of

> Trafalgar Square. I remember the massive

> resistance to that from drivers and cabbies.

> Would we ever go back to having a road in front of

> the National Gallery? Hope you all appreciate the

> counter argument.

> https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15721180-20

> 0-roadblocks-ahead/

That's not really the argument is it? There are no school streets nearby forcing traffic on to busy roads. We all got used to that scheme at Trafalgar Square because it was logical and in fact made little difference to driving around the area. You couldn't say the same if you lived in Croxted Road or your child was at one of the Rosendale Schools.

[malumbu]

I expect that traffic did worsen around central London following the closure around Trafalgar Square, and there are some people who do live there. But once we got used to it no going back.

As I know my interjections are greatly appreciated here's another article on reducing pollution, in particularly curbing the rise of urban deliveries, including the opportunities for active travel. The article talks about 'nudging' consumers, I think you need a sledge hammer. As before think you need to go to national government if you seriously want to change things. I've extracted the key paragraph:

Next-day deliveries aren't the most efficient way to transport goods. So why not nudge consumers with a small charge, so they choose to pick up non-urgent deliveries within a few days by walking or cycling to a local high-street collection point? We've seen the difference just 10p has made to plastic bag consumption. We could plan better and restrict deliveries to certain times of day so it isn't a free-for-all. These actions could help to make transport more efficient and reduce the number of journeys made. https://www.transporttimes.co.uk/news.php/We-must-think-outside-the-delivery-box-before-it-s-too-late-576/?utm_source=Transport+Times&utm_campaign=e7c30dae5b-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_10_30_11_03_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c0cafa3f39-e7c30dae5b-250793593

PS the article refers to the excellent work of Lambeth in using 'Pedal me' to deliver to the vulnerable during lockdown #1 Lambeth also phased their LTN road changes, and apparently more successful than other boroughs. Dare I say some learning points Southwark?

[legalalien]

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

[Rockets]

I think Lambeth are light-years ahead of Southwark in their ability to communicate and execute properly. I think they learnt the same lessons during the Loughborough Junction debacle that Southwark are learning now through the LTN process.

Lambeth were much quicker on the draw to aid social distancing for their residents. They had barriers up around Herne Hill under the bridge incredibly quickly. Lambeth really are a beacon for other councils on how to do things but they didn't always get it right so there's hope that Southwark will improve over time.

[Nigello]

Minority of noisy dissidents ? Yes or No?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/13/local-councils-advised-to-push-ahead-with-traffic-reduction-schemes

[Rockets]

Yes I just saw that too and it's a very interesting article - even though it is penned by Peter Walker - and we know which side his bread is buttered in this debate.

Perhaps the most interesting section for me was this...

Shapps is sending a letter to all councils receiving the money to remind them that consultation on LTNs and other schemes should involve objective gauges such as polling, rather than ?listening only to the loudest voices or giving any one group a veto?.

So despite what Shapps says about local support he is telling the councils to go and find out what the real sentiment towards them is amongst their constituents. Maybe that is just how I am reading it through my one-eyed view of this issue (twinned with a healthy dose of cynicism towards what the Tories are actually up to here) but I read it as he is upping the pressure for councils to find out from their residents what they think of the plans. Now, if that polling shows support the Tories then claim it as a victory for their initiative. On the other hand if they show a lack of support for them it does damage to the relationship between councils (especially the Labour councils who have rolled these out aggressively) and their constituents which at the macro political level (especially in London where they want to unseat Sadiq) is a far better outcome for the them.

[legalalien]

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....

[Rockets]

Looks like we need to see what Southwark's next move is...this might explain why Cllr McAsh has been unable to get answers to his questions to the council as they are having to have a bit of a re-assessment of how they monitor and consult on these changes. It seems the days of charging forth with neither is no longer an option for councils. Could this explain why the Peckham Rye closures are on hold?

I think planters and other immovable blocks are doomed.....;-) Both the utilities and emergency service seem to want to have them replaced with something else (removable bollards etc).

[richard tudor]

For information/

Bellenden Road into Chadwick Road has the Lydnhurst Road turn Closed.

Gridlocked through Grove Park and Camberwell Grove.

Avoid

[Abe_froeman]

The cyclists will be thrilled

[malumbu]

Link to PM on promoting cycling. As said this is coming from the top (unholy alliance between a surprisingly interventionist Tory government and labour local authorities?). I'll try to avoid inflaming the argument, and just post factual stuff and links, as you will have gathered my opinion by now

https://www.cyclist.co.uk/news/8185/boris-johnson-obsessed-with-encouraging-cycling

[mrwb]

Townley road is being blocked as well? During select hours, morning and afternoon starting on the 17th?

Prepare for gridlock ?

[Rockets]

Also a heads-up that Lordship Lane southbound to the Grove Tavern is nose-to-tail tonight and, as a result, heavy traffic going up Underhill to cut the corner.

[KidKruger]

yeah I got caught in that, took 20mins to turn out of Melford on to LL !

[Nigello]

Anyone?s ears burning?

Sadly, there is a vociferous minority who don?t want us to do this. They want our residential streets to remain a convenience for others to drive through. I share their outrage ? but my vexation is at the fact that we have to defend and campaign for these things; to get back what we should never have lost in the first place.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/13/children-britain-residential-streets-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-roads

[ab29]

Underhill Rd has been awful ever since the LTNs nightmare introduction. For years it's been my to-and-from-work walking route - no more. I don't drive and I don't cycle but I walk a lot; ever since this failed scheme was put in place many roads I used to walk have become so full of traffic and pollution I can hardly walk there anymore.

Has anyone heard any news about the legal challenge against Ealing & other councils re: the LTNs ?

[legalalien]

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.

[legalalien]

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