LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Earl Aelfheah]

yep, they're speed limiting electric scooters to 10 mph. Not limiting SUVs though - as they like as they pose far less danger to others.

[smooch]

they are already blaming central government - its not their fault and they cannot take them out anyway without being financially penalised - funny how other boroughs have taken them out tho......

[Rockets]

Given the amount they have spent on them already and the fact they are not delivering I think we are all being financially penalised by the LTNs already.....with Southwark there's always someone else to blame.....accountability isn't their strong point

[Rockets]

Has the sign vandal been out plying their trade again - I read that a lot of signs were been pulled down and thrown in people's gardens again yesterday.

[heartblock]

Yes - trespassing on private property and vandalising signs - I expect Southwark Councillors and neighbours in other roads to condemn this intrusion on privacy, very scary for some of our elderly residents and young children.

[KidKruger]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> yep, they're speed limiting electric scooters to

> 10 mph. Not limiting SUVs though - as they like as

> they pose far less danger to others.

Isn?t there already (for some years) a 20mph speed limit across the entire of Southwark, including OKR ?

[malumbu]

smooch Wrote:

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

> they are already blaming central government - its

> not their fault and they cannot take them out

> anyway without being financially penalised - funny

> how other boroughs have taken them out tho......

Why on earth not? They let local authorities do the dirty work without the resources. They fail to join things up. They neither intervene, nor do they encourage a culture change. Freeze fuel duty. etc etc. Don't want to lose votes. Gesture politics. I have little intimate knowledge of traffic flows on the LTN but I know shed loads on air quality,climate change and transport.

Credit to those local authorities sticking to their principles whether you like it or not. And a loud raspberry to Ealing and the like for caving in.

Anyway back to educating oneselves, article from George Monobot in the Guardian "Instead of focusing on ?micro consumerist bollocks? like ditching our plastic coffee cups, we must challenge the pursuit of wealth and level down, not up" https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/30/capitalism-is-killing-the-planet-its-time-to-stop-buying-into-our-own-destruction?

Sorry haven't fully digested it yet as I usually like to give my own summary.

[heartblock]

George is great and I completely agree with him - so much money tied up in increasing profit from digging out fossil fuels, building cars, shooting birds and building military weapons that the planet will continue to be polluted and de-wilded. The accumulation of wealth is intrinsically linked to environmental disasters. His article very much reflects Medact thinking.

This is my major argument against LTNs - funded by a Tory Government who continue to build roads and take investment away from public transport - LTNs have become THE focus of Labour Councils - what a fantastic policy from central government to 1. Blame personal and individual choices for pollution 2. Divert the arguments from the real causes of pollution 3. Allow the continued dismantling of public transport because 'LTNs and cycling' are promoted as THE answer to traffic pollution in London.

Silly Labour - out manoeuvred by Boris.

[Rockets]

Out manoeuvred by Boris and alienating themselves from their own constituents...this isn't going to end well.

And yet Southwark still give more voice and influence to vested-interest lobby groups than their actual constituents......

[legalalien]

Lots of new stuff on the Southwark website for those interested in seeing how the smaller schemes are playing out elsewhere in the borough (and in particular different approaches to data collection and presentation and the Council?s response to consultation outcomes):

Great Suffolk Street StreetSpace: https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=7480 . Measures to be made permanent but officers have to design modifications to the scheme to allow better access for residents, businesses and licensed taxis and to make use of the space created (i.e. we?re going to push ahead even though it?s not working well, we?ll try and fix that a bit later). 8.3% response rate cited, but it?s then noted that within that response rate are lots of evil taxi drivers (and maybe cyclists?) so for the large part of the data analysis they just use residents (business owners and those who travel in to work in the area are strongly opposed and that would affect all the charts). Predictably, ?support with modifications? is lumped in with ?retain as is? to indicate a marginally higher level of support (55%)that is used to justify keeping the scheme in. EQIA only being done now. These particular streets perform poorly in the Urban Street Index so these are targeted measures designed to reduce health inequality. The traffic data is flimsy to say the least, and it seems that a lot of residents and businesses are experiencing access problems and traffic has been shifted to nearby streets.

Bermondsey Street LTN: https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=7482

Again a decision to make permanent and then investigate some further measures to try and address the displaced traffic problem as well as doing an EQIA (to be considered in conjunction with statutory objections). Again the retain and retain with changes are aggregated to get majority support for this decision to keep as is. Tanner Street appears to be Bermondsey?s Croxted Road equivalent. This time the street concerned is one of the best performing areas in the Urban Health Index. But because it?s close to a poor performing area, and the overall aim of the measures is active travel this seems to be not an issue.

The first wave of monitoring compares August 2020 (school holiday) with April 2021 (not), and then second wave compares against August 2021. Report authors note the school holiday issue, COVID restriction issues, and the weather (raining in April, not raining in August 2021) so better from a transparency point of view?

Walworth Streetspace: https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=7481

Notes that low traffic neighbourhood schemes are supported and encouraged by national and pan-London transport policy. Decision is to retain measures with some modifications eg cameras rather than permanent closures, exemptions for blue badge holders etc) but instruct officers ? with the community in the area bounded by John Ruskin Street, Camberwell New Road and Camberwell Road to explore possible traffic reduction and improvement measures.? (Elsewhere in the report this is described as engaging ?to investigate low-traffic interventions that support the Council?s priorities to tackle the Climate Emergency?. Key issues noted include the fact that this is an area with high traffic but low car ownership, high level of health inequality and childhood obesity, and high NO2 levels, which is why Walworth was prioritised (funnily enough, these factors not mentioned in the Dulwich decision). Air Quality monitoring is included, and there was an origin/ destination survey done on one of the streets (john Ruskin Street which seems to have been one of the main losers). A full EQIA was done. I?ve only read the summary in the main report so far but it seems that in each of the groups identified (disabled, older people, BME) car ownership was high and the preference was to remove the measures and return to the original state. I can?t face reading the Appendices but the EQIA looks worth a read.

Some new procedural changes seem to have been put in place, the sections of the report dealing with law and finance in the first two now seem to have alphanumeric codes applied - presumably so that the ?who signed this off?? question can be easily answered at a future date, they also note that there has been consultation with a Climate Emergency Officer? and a ?Health Policy Officer?. In relation to that, the councillor?s question about how the council?s constitutional requirement to consider climate change in all its decisions is discharged has been answered (answers to all Member?s questions at this week?s Council Assembly meeting here: https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s103295/Members%20question%20time%20with%20responses.pdf - it?s question 16.I?m not convinced it?s a particularly robust process, looks a bit greenwashy given officers writing reports have been ?offered? (not necessarily ?given?) training and won?t have much or any expertise in most cases. There seems to be a lot of cutting and pasting of generalised statements going on, rather than detailed thought given (in some places eg references to contractors using electric vehicles where possible, where no changes are going to be made).

[heartblock]

Wow - Rockets - I have just read that Twitter thread - so is Southwark saying that their are 'neighbourhoods' who deserve clean air and then Lordship Lane, Grove Vale, Croxted Road and East Dulwich Grove are not 'neighbourhoods' so we can just suffer pollution, inequality and more traffic?

What is all this Village business??? I am a City dweller - My parents lived in a Village - shudder....

[heartblock]

Thanks Legal - seems they have made a right old mess of it.

[legalalien]

Date for the diary:

Councillor Rose is going to present / answer questions about the Streetspace trials at the Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting on 1 December. (This was deferred from their last meeting as it was getting late and some of the committee members didn?t want to rush it through - although the chair and Cllr Rose seemed quite keen to do just that!)

Agenda here https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=7003. Looks like an interesting meeting as it also features the London Fire Brigade as well as Extinction Rebellion giving their thoughts on Southwark?s Climate Change Strategy (you may recall that ER are not big fans: https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/environmental-campaigners-tear-into-southwark-councils-long-awaited-climate-strategy/)

[legalalien]

I?m guessing Living Streets and Southwark cyclists were one of the deputations successful in being selected for this week?s Council Assembly meeting? Not sure I can bear to watch it...

ETA doesn?t look as though it?s online anyway!

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Out manoeuvred by Boris and alienating themselves

> from their own constituents...this isn't going to

> end well.

>

> And yet Southwark still give more voice and

> influence to vested-interest lobby groups than

> their actual constituents......

>

>

> https://twitter.com/SouthwarkLabour/status/1463614

> 939776565257?t=OpnRe7fJKKZnwQgJjt9GyQ&s=19

[Rockets]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Wow - Rockets - I have just read that Twitter

> thread - so is Southwark saying that their are

> 'neighbourhoods' who deserve clean air and then

> Lordship Lane, Grove Vale, Croxted Road and East

> Dulwich Grove are not 'neighbourhoods' so we can

> just suffer pollution, inequality and more

> traffic?

> What is all this Village business??? I am a City

> dweller - My parents lived in a Village -

> shudder....

It appears to be the pre-cursor for the 15 minute city narrative.

Of course, in many ways they are correct that Southwark is a collection of interconnected villages but theym ignore/fail to use their own data to determine the viability of 15 the minute city narrative. If you look at the 2018 TMS report on Dulwich the overwhelming majority of journeys to and from Dulwich are to/from neighbouring and non-neighbouring boroughs - which makes the 15 minute city narrative a non-starter. Granted, people can shop locally etc on foot and bike (which Dulwich folk do already - 68% of local journeys blah blah blah) but their lives extend beyond a 15 minute door to door radius - unfortunately much of that is dictated by the sprawling nature of London and without a massive and fundamental upheaval of the public transport system in the area the car will always be the first choice.

It's one of the reasons that there is zero reduction in car ownership within the boundaries of LTNs - people may cycle their kids to school or walk to the local shops but they keep their cars for longer journeys.

[DulvilleRes]

It feels to me that the only thing that is going to reduce traffic on everyone's road is when there is a powerful disincentive to drive for private journeys that could be completed by active travel or public transport, and that seems to be happening. The LTN's are part of a package of other measures, such as ULEZ charges and reduced road space because of cycle lanes that might make people think twice about jumping into the most convenient form of transport ever devised.

In the north of the borough I've noticed a complete sea change in the last 2/3 years of people's transport choices - there are huge numbers of cyclists on the road, and I've actually been caught up in a traffic jam of parents taking their kids to nursery/ school by push bike. That never happened before.

Dulwich seems slower to catch on, but I don't see how the One Dulwich recommendation for things to 'return as they were' is really going to change anything. I completely get that people are opposed to the LTN's for a wide variety of motives, and some posters here don't own a car. However I would have thought that that oppositional energy would be better directed at finding ways of reducing private car journeys rather than getting on the Council's back, who are at least trying to so something.

[rupert james]

In the north of the borough I've noticed a complete sea change in the last 2/3 years of people's transport choices - there are huge numbers of cyclists on the road, and I've actually been caught up in a traffic jam of parents taking their kids to nursery/ school by push bike. That never happened before.

Where did this happen?

[heartblock]

When I walk to Herne Hill Station - almost all push bikes are from the back of a Range Rover or other Chelsea tractor parked on Village or Half Moon. The last bit is on the bike.....

[legalalien]

I would rather the council did nothing rather than both making things worse overall and creating inequalities. I also have well-rehearsed concerns about the way they go about things and I don?t apologise for criticising on that front as I think the proper workings of democracy are very important.

Does anyone have a proper working knowledge of TfL?s charging powers under Schedule 23 of the Greater London Authority Act? Does TfL / to what extent do boroughs have powers to implement road charging (eg for home deliveries)? I will try and read it properly at some stage but I?m sure someone will know. Malumbu (if you?re still reading)?

[rupert james]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> When I walk to Herne Hill Station - almost all

> push bikes are from the back of a Range Rover or

> other Chelsea tractor parked on Village or Half

> Moon. The last bit is on the bike.....

Is this where this traffic jam occurs? Or is it in the north of the borough only. Confused

[Rockets]

DulvilleRes Wrote:

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

> It feels to me that the only thing that is going

> to reduce traffic on everyone's road is when there

> is a powerful disincentive to drive for private

> journeys that could be completed by active travel

> or public transport, and that seems to be

> happening. The LTN's are part of a package of

> other measures, such as ULEZ charges and reduced

> road space because of cycle lanes that might make

> people think twice about jumping into the most

> convenient form of transport ever devised.

>

> In the north of the borough I've noticed a

> complete sea change in the last 2/3 years of

> people's transport choices - there are huge

> numbers of cyclists on the road, and I've actually

> been caught up in a traffic jam of parents taking

> their kids to nursery/ school by push bike. That

> never happened before.

>

> Dulwich seems slower to catch on, but I don't see

> how the One Dulwich recommendation for things to

> 'return as they were' is really going to change

> anything. I completely get that people are opposed

> to the LTN's for a wide variety of motives, and

> some posters here don't own a car. However I would

> have thought that that oppositional energy would

> be better directed at finding ways of reducing

> private car journeys rather than getting on the

> Council's back, who are at least trying to so

> something.

But there is no evidence to date that the LTNs are doing anything to reduce car use or congestion is there - but there's compelling evidence that they merely divert the traffic elsewhere and create more congestion - I refer you to the GSST sponsored report.

And those LTNs within the GSST report are in the north of the borough - an area where PTAL scores are much higher in the south of the borough. So maybe, the "slowness" for Dulwich to catch on has more to do with the fact there are not viable alternatives to travel through and across the area - LTNs were doomed to fail in Dulwich.

And this whole get off the council's back and put your efforts into supporting the council is a bit laughable; especially considering the council steadfastly refuses to engage with anyone other than Southwark Cyclists or Living Streets on the matter. In fact, they seem to be going out of their way to avoid engaging with any constituent actually having to live with the LTNs. I am intrigued what these other measures in the package are; ULEZ is a TFL initiative and Southwark have done very little in terms of segregated bikes lanes.

I would also challenge you on your assumption that the motor car is the most convenient form of transport ever devised, it's not by a long way - cars cost a lot to buy, own and run. I think the bike trumps the car in the most facets of the most convenient category! It's just that, for some reason, people choose the car over the bike.

[CPR Dave]

ULEZ has failed to have any impact on traffic whatsoever. People just bought new cars.

Then the mayor moaned that the scheme wasn#t making as much money as he expected (it's making about 25% of what they hoped for) revealing that it was never about reducing pollution and was just there to make money out of us.

[legalalien]

Found video of Council assembly meeting.

You can hear Cllr McAsh telling everyone how brave they?ve been in not buckling to constituent pressure over LTNS. Just before 38 minutes. Similarly Cllr Caldwell at around 50 mins talks about the council ?holding its nerve? on the Walworth LTN. Special congrats to Cllr Rose for leading by example...with her bold and brave leadership on the issue.. Cllr Rose also gets a shout out from Cllr Dennis for her hard work and resilience (around 1:04). The Living Streets and Southwark Cyclists bit starts at 1:06.

Link on this page https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=7043.

[Rockets]

Ha ha, come May some of their political careers may succumb to constituent pressure......bravery fast becomes foolishness at the ballot box!

[Spartacus]

legalalien Wrote:

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

> Found video of Council assembly meeting.

>

> You can hear Cllr McAsh telling everyone how brave

> they?ve been in not buckling to constituent

> pressure over LTNS. Just before 38 minutes.

> Similarly Cllr Caldwell at around 50 mins talks

> about the council ?holding its nerve? on the

> Walworth LTN. Special congrats to Cllr Rose for

> leading by example...with her bold and brave

> leadership on the issue.. Cllr Rose also gets a

> shout out from Cllr Dennis for her hard work and

> resilience (around 1:04). The Living Streets and

> Southwark Cyclists bit starts at 1:06.

>

> Link on this page

> https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments

> .aspx?MId=7043.

WOW and they represent us and our views?

Unbelievable really