LTN Discussion

[Metallic]

goldilocks Wrote:

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

> Said in jest - more than once...

>

> Anyway, lets take a moment on Cllr Burgess. She

> has been for the past 2 years, deputy cabinet

> member with responsibility for Low Traffic

> Southwark. Her title changed at some point, can't

> quite recall when or to what though but

> essentially the same mandate throughout.

>

> Over a year into her role there was a committee

> meeting where she was asked about what progress

> she'd made on a borough wide freight policy (to be

> clear - she was scheduled to talk, rather than

> asked when not expected). This was something that

> was firmly within her mandate and her response was

> vague, none defined and apparent that she'd done

> precisely nothing and then she finished with 'was

> that enough, or would you like me to do some more

> blue sky thinking'.

>

> If Cllr Burgess had been doing her job for the

> past 2 years then maybe Southwark would be closer

> to a last mile logistics policy which might be

> addressing all the next day delivery issues that

> are an increasing component of the traffic on our

> roads. But instead she's spent 2 years producing

> precisely nothing (though maybe this mystery paper

> will outline it all).

It looks as if you have lost it goldilocks. Why so nasty? Losing the argument? I had a look at that meeting. (The Environment Scrutiny Commission zoom meeting 9/3/21.) I have been continually hoping to hear Councillor Rose actually qualify her decisions that have affected so many of us in SE22 and SE21. But no chance. And this week's sound quality was too awful to follow in several places. She doesn't answer letters, emails or give a round up of her views that anyone can understand. It has been going on too long as that video shows.

Far from being workshy, I reckon Councillor Burgess seems to have contributed to the strategies that Councillor Rose has outlined in many of her endless and rambling presentations to her ceiling. And I think she is remarkably clear and consistent on issues of social justice, data and so on. By the way I didn't hear a question on freight.

goldilocks I think you are making trouble for Councillor Burgess.

When all us locals interested in the coming elections and how all the candidates are performing, clarifying their position, trying to excuse or cover up what they've done or whatever, these meetings are irresistible. And legalalien is right when she says, above my post "Well, I still appreciated Cllr Burgess? contribution. Not least the bit where she suggested that the policy should not be to grant LTNs ?on request? by groups of residents, because of the real risk that would result in small groups of residents with more social capital getting benefits for themselves at the expense of those less engaged." Sound familiar?

[goldilocks]

'making trouble for Cllr Burgess'? No not really - just commenting in response to all the fangirling that's going on upthread. My comments on the 'blue-sky thinking' were in relation to an earlier meeting where she was presenting back on progress made in her role. I'm sure its on youtube, but I can summarise it as 'zero'.

Having looked up her current position Cllr Burgess is now 'Deputy Cabinet Member for Clean Air and Active Travel.' She has held a deputy cabinet position since I think 2020 and was previously responsible for low traffic Southwark and whilst Rose was the decision maker, Cllr Burgess had an associated deputy cabinet role. I raise this as Cllr Burgess has not been looking in from the sidelines!

To be clear - I also agree that Rose's lack of responses to emails etc is very frustrating - especially when people like Rockets have continued questions that are valid and could easily be answered by someone who had bandwith or support to do so, but then the lack of response is taken as an assumption that the inferences drawn must be valid and Southwark data must be wrong. Essentially the lack of responsiveness frustrates everyone.

[Bic Basher]

Well the council achieved something, splitting Dulwich down the middle as this thread clearly shows.

[heartblock]

Yes well done Southwark Council..neighbour against neighbour, in some sort of contrived street fight and we all want the same things really, peaceful places to live, less traffic, cleaner air, good public transport, safer cycling and walking routes, safer roads and green spaces to enjoy. Southwark has made this a place of the haves and the have-nots.

[tiddles]

I?ve said it before - I agree that we need to encourage other forms of transport where possible- I cycle a lot locally to work. I am horrified by the dreadful congestion that has been created by the LTN?s. To my mind these are creating dreadful pollution. I have several friends and work clients who live or have business?s in Dulwich village and they HATE these road closures.

[legalalien]

For info - report underlying yesterday?s reported decision by Greenwich Council to remove the West Greenwich LTN, noting resident concern about displaced traffic and an equalities analysis which notes disbenefits to older people, disabled, ethnic groups who may be more reliant on cars. Looks as though they are going back to the drawing board to do a redesign to try and get something that works, even recognising that the lack of an identified funding stream may result in delay. (I say reported because I?m not sure if it has been formally signed off yet).

https://committees.royalgreenwich.gov.uk/Document.ashx?czJKcaeAi5tUFL1DTL2UE4zNRBcoShgo=c2N3RIT%2BIB3KtOrqD4mqgeyvIXLhcZdtjgEDx66Vg9i%2BwnYtYWWs4A%3D%3D&rUzwRPf%2BZ3zd4E7Ikn8Lyw%3D%3D=pwRE6AGJFLDNlh225F5QMaQWCtPHwdhUfCZ/LUQzgA2uL5jNRG4jdQ%3D%3D&mCTIbCubSFfXsDGW9IXnlg%3D%3D=hFflUdN3100%3D&kCx1AnS9/pWZQ40DXFvdEw%3D%3D=hFflUdN3100%3D&uJovDxwdjMPoYv%2BAJvYtyA%3D%3D=ctNJFf55vVA%3D&FgPlIEJYlotS%2BYGoBi5olA%3D%3D=NHdURQburHA%3D&d9Qjj0ag1Pd993jsyOJqFvmyB7X0CSQK=ctNJFf55vVA%3D&WGewmoAfeNR9xqBux0r1Q8Za60lavYmz=ctNJFf55vVA%3D&WGewmoAfeNQ16B2MHuCpMRKZMwaG1PaO=ctNJFf55vVA%3D&fbclid=IwAR2aEvGf22zZKyI4D4TTuZuOrhbY7rkkPWCuTSYZvzKYpwAo-GbLhYhNORc

https://www.onlondon.co.uk/greenwich-council-to-scrap-low-traffic-neighbourhood/

[heartblock]

ED Grove just awful this morning...I imagine a traffic count would measure less cars past a point in an hour as the whole line is practically stationary from LL up ti DV, this is where Cllr Burgess is right - it is congested idling traffic that is the issue not the number of cars that pass a point. If we stuck 20 cars down Melbourne Grove and had them idling there for an hour - I wonder how much the residents would enjoy being told - well it's only 20 cars so it's a success!

[Spartacus]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Yes well done Southwark Council..neighbour against

> neighbour, in some sort of contrived street fight

> and we all want the same things really, peaceful

> places to live, less traffic, cleaner air, good

> public transport, safer cycling and walking

> routes, safer roads and green spaces to enjoy.

> Southwark has made this a place of the haves and

> the have-nots.

It's all becoming a bit of a Jets vs the Sharks situation at the moment with Cllr Burgess playing Maria. 😆

[kissthisguy]

Very interesting spot, @legalalien. Makes it clear this is a political choice: roughly the same feedback, issues, potential problems with elderly disabled etc, in both Greenwich and Southwark.

Also clear that Labour doesn't have a policy on this, given the differing decisions made from one Lab council to the next, which is probably right. It should be down to each LA to make an assessment based on their own circumstances.

legalalien Wrote:

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

> For info - report underlying yesterday?s reported

> decision by Greenwich Council to remove the West

> Greenwich LTN, noting resident concern about

> displaced traffic and an equalities analysis which

> notes disbenefits to older people, disabled,

> ethnic groups who may be more reliant on cars.

> Looks as though they are going back to the drawing

> board to do a redesign to try and get something

> that works, even recognising that the lack of an

> identified funding stream may result in delay. (I

> say reported because I?m not sure if it has been

> formally signed off yet).

>

> https://committees.royalgreenwich.gov.uk/Document.

> ashx?czJKcaeAi5tUFL1DTL2UE4zNRBcoShgo=c2N3RIT%2BIB

> 3KtOrqD4mqgeyvIXLhcZdtjgEDx66Vg9i%2BwnYtYWWs4A%3D%

> 3D&rUzwRPf%2BZ3zd4E7Ikn8Lyw%3D%3D=pwRE6AGJFLDNlh22

> 5F5QMaQWCtPHwdhUfCZ/LUQzgA2uL5jNRG4jdQ%3D%3D&mCTIb

> CubSFfXsDGW9IXnlg%3D%3D=hFflUdN3100%3D&kCx1AnS9/pW

> ZQ40DXFvdEw%3D%3D=hFflUdN3100%3D&uJovDxwdjMPoYv%2B

> AJvYtyA%3D%3D=ctNJFf55vVA%3D&FgPlIEJYlotS%2BYGoBi5

> olA%3D%3D=NHdURQburHA%3D&d9Qjj0ag1Pd993jsyOJqFvmyB

> 7X0CSQK=ctNJFf55vVA%3D&WGewmoAfeNR9xqBux0r1Q8Za60l

> avYmz=ctNJFf55vVA%3D&WGewmoAfeNQ16B2MHuCpMRKZMwaG1

> PaO=ctNJFf55vVA%3D&fbclid=IwAR2aEvGf22zZKyI4D4TTuZ

> uOrhbY7rkkPWCuTSYZvzKYpwAo-GbLhYhNORc

>

> https://www.onlondon.co.uk/greenwich-council-to-sc

> rap-low-traffic-neighbourhood/

[Metallic]

goldilocks. The meeting I was referring to is Environment Scrutiny Commission 9.3.21. On Youtube:

(I hope!!)

[Peckham Park]

That YouTube of Cll Hamvas was painful to watch. Hopefully she extracted whatever was in her mouth:(

[kissthisguy]

@metallic thanks for posting. I've got it on in the background but at first listen Cllr Rose sounds very reasonable and as though she's trying to balance different needs. (This was from March 2021 so approx 6 months since she started as a cabinet member).

[kissthisguy]

Worth a watch to the end - most notably for contribution from the London Ambulance Service. How the delays experienced (51 out of 170 IIRC in Southwark alone from the LTNs) weren't the end of it I'll never know.

Seemingly sensible contributions too from Cllrs Flynn, Hamvas and Werner all of whom, along with Cllr Rose and Burgess at least appear to be trying to be guided by principles of fairness.

@goldilocks' characterisation of the meeting is wide of the mark.

[goldilocks]

Its the discussion of the 'low traffic Southwark' strategy where she is asked what the emerging themes are(which was her role at the time to develop) and she lists off a whole range of things like she's thinking of them for the first time finishing with 'or do you want me to do some more blue sky thinking' when in reality it was actually a question about what she has identified for future work and policy.

Also interesting though where she suggests over time removing parking on roads - at least on one side. Wonder how many of her new found fangroup would be recoilling in horror at that? Given no changes will come without a CPZ, the idea of permits and significantly less parking could be a challenge for the 'you can't expect busy parents, people with young children, older people etc to use active travel crowd!

[legalalien]

I have no problem with a CPZ as it happens, perhaps with resident permits only allowed for those without off street parking, to discourage multiple car households. I haven?t seen many arguments on here based on busy parents and young children tbh.

I think your expectations of a deputy cabinet member might be a bit much, they are paid a lot less than cabinet members as I understand it. (In case people wonder about that, I think this is the current schedule https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/23474/Members-Allowances-Scheme-October-2020.pdf. But whether or not Cllr Burgess is lazy, as you seem to be suggesting, it doesn?t mean she hasn?t made good points. No need to confuse the messenger and the message.

I?ve emailed to see whether the mystery paper is going to be put on the website.

[Rockets]

Do the pro-LTN lobby have to attack anyone and everyone who doesn't whole-heartedly support their views? The moment someone mentions Cllr Burgess and flags that she seems to be taking a sensible approach and asking the questions we would all want any of our councillors to ask the attacks on her commence. It's all very sad and quite scary that this has become so polarised.

Anyway, anyone else noticed how the council are having to send traffic enforcement officers to the newly opened junction to try and stop Hamlet school drop off parents from parking and blocking access for emergency vehicles? And people say it is just the private schools that have a problem with the school drop......

[goldilocks]

It really isn't just the private schools who have the issues with school parents - though they're a convenient target for this ire. The streets are much quieter when they're on holiday, but its not the case that they're the only traffic - more they're the 'straw that breaks the camels back'.

Since the square was put in there are a lot of parents using it as a drop off area and now, given that emergency access has been provided its more important that this doesn't happen as given emergency access is supposed to be available, having someone parked up for the school run for Hamlet / DVIS becomes even less appropriate.

[legalalien]

Maybe out some of those ?no stopping? yellow pavement markings at the junction end of court lane? The combination of the closed area and the construction works/ lorries turning is a bit unfortunate at the moment.

[heartblock]

There is no such thing as the 'square' it is a road junction and yes the vitriol towards a Cllr who questions and voices other views just shows where fundamentalist attitudes lead.

[goldilocks]

Yes would agree that pavement pips on the section nearest to the planters to ensure that even loading isn't permitted would help with enforcement. The lorries for the building site are an additional concern so not adding to the congestion there would be wise.

There have been more enforcement officers there this week - whether this leads to any change in behaviour remains to be seen.

[Waseley]

I thought that the postings about LTNers comments on a Councillor were being ironic bearing in mind the vitriol by some of the anti-LTNers against the architect of these schemes. Even the use of terms pro and anti hardly encourage compromise. Has it always been like this? I've not gone through the old thread but see that there was 1000s of posts.

[heartblock]

I dislike any fundamentalist attitude and personal attacks are unpleasant wherever they come from. All I know is my road I live on and have lived on for 35 years has been ruined by these LTNs. Southwark Council a a whole has not consulted or acted in a way that gives me any faith in the Council. As for my local Cllrs they have always been polite, helpful and ready to discuss local matters.

It's about a flawed and idiotic policy, with questionable data and obvious impacts on already polluted roads. It isn't about being rather unpleasantly personal about individual Cllrs - I would urge everyone to stop that sort of language and vitriol - please. I have already asked someone on another thread to remove a cultural slur, so lets try to keep to the subject.

[Waseley]

But even the term idiotic is emotive. I know that this was not aimed at an individual. You could say that many drivers are idiots as they know about air pollution and climate change but do not change their behaviour. That is the challenge, making it more inconvenient should make a difference but it may take time. It's not simply switching to active travel or public transport. If you have to drive your child to school then go with a car full, and take other cars off the road.

[legalalien]

I agree heartblock. I don't think there's been a lot of drama/ personal insults about local councillors supporting the schemes on this thread (and the old one, although obvs I haven't read it all) other than complaints about not being spoken/ listened to in various cases. I know there's a lot out there on twitter (not sure about other social media), although it seems that some of the councillors give as much as they get out there in the twitterverse. One of the reasons I don't have social media accounts. There's give and take here on EDF but it's on a slightly less confrontational level, and closed bubbles/ blocking etc doesn't happen, which I think is really important. We may get tetchy with each other for sure, but at least the lines of communication are open. That's what I think, anyway.

[legalalien]

and Waseley - yes, emotive language will sneak in when people feel strongly. On both sides - I mean "how many of her new found fangroup would be recoiling in horror at that" is a bit emotive, no? But as long as we understand that's a feature of people feeling passionate, we should be able to let that go, I should think - as long it doesn't turn into a personal attack.

There was a really interesting column in the Times this morning by James Marriott about the effect that thinking you are morally right has on your behaviour. Food for thought for everyone.