LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Rockets]

What happens next is really interesting and cast your mind back to Southwark's first push for these measures which was based solely around "social distancing" but it clear one of the key findings in that case applies locally too:

As it was, the measures proposed in the Plan and the Guidance, and implemented in the A10 order, far exceeded what was reasonably required to meet the temporary challenges created by the pandemic.

It seems the mayor, TFL and councils have created huge issues for themselves by being way too keen to use Covid as a trojan horse to role out programmes without proper consultation or engagement. It was like catnip to them and they couldn't help themselves.

I very much hope this is the beginning of the end for these flawed schemes and then we can analyse how much time, money, resources and effort was wasted by the council when they should have focussing on other more important, community-wide, challenges. They all got sold down the river by the pro-closure lobby and completely misjudged the wider public sentiment and, as we all know, a politician does that at their peril.....

[Abe_froeman]

"Posted by malumbu Yesterday, 06:44PM

PS don't live in a gated community and shocked that we have them here..."

I pretty sure you've said elsewhere on this forum that you don't even live in Southwark

[Spartacus]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> It was like catnip to them and they couldn't help themselves.

Thank you

I've now got an image of council officers wide eyed and high on nip rubbing themselves up and down on a giddy planning kipper 😻

No change from how they normally behave I suspect

[legalalien]

More cases in the pipeline, according to the Times:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/at-least-ten-legal-challenges-mounted-against-pro-cycling-road-closure-schemes-mqp7bjnpz?shareToken=829d7ddb5abfb5d322263d50e41309fe

[Spartacus]

And as well as going after the street space changes, cabbies are going for uber based on illegal business activity

BBC News - Uber: London cabbies plan to sue for damages

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55742569

Whilst indirectly related to the healthy streets, if they win and companies like uber are forced to withdraw or change their business practices then it may have additional positive effects on traffic volumes using main and side roads and people returning to public transport

This could see lower traffic volumes occurring naturally and negating one of the key arguments for LTNs (but not all)

[mrwb]

Looks like they're only suing for 2012-2018 so whilst it could cost Uber money, it wouldn't effect how they operate now.

Case will probably drag on for years in any case.

Public transport in London will recover previous levels when fear of Covid disperses, could be up to 5 years or even longer.

Long term I think we see much less traffic in London because depopulation has started to gather pace accelerated by the pandemic. We'll also see the ghost town that is much of the center continue as tourism and business travel will remain depressed for many years as well.

Once Covid fear subsides in however many years, we'll be left with less traffic and much higher crime due to all the economic problems. Similar to the 70s and 80s.

Spartacus Wrote:

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

> And as well as going after the street space

> changes, cabbies are going for uber based on

> illegal business activity

> BBC News - Uber: London cabbies plan to sue for

> damages

> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55742569

>

> Whilst indirectly related to the healthy streets,

> if they win and companies like uber are forced to

> withdraw or change their business practices then

> it may have additional positive effects on traffic

> volumes using main and side roads and people

> returning to public transport

>

> This could see lower traffic volumes occurring

> naturally and negating one of the key arguments

> for LTNs (but not all)

[exdulwicher]

And as well as going after the street space changes, cabbies are going for uber based on illegal business activity

BBC News - Uber: London cabbies plan to sue for damages

Black cab drivers have been after Uber through various channels for years now. They tried to get them on the basis that the app isn't a taximeter and lost that case which prompted an immediate appeal.

This will go back and forth for another year or so.

[malumbu]

Interesting blog from Sustrans on health streets with loads of links. Worth flicking through at your leisure

https://www.sustrans.org.uk/our-blog/opinion/2021/january/it-takes-both-bollards-and-behaviour-change-initiatives-to-change-how-people-travel/?utm_source=Sustrans&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=12086381_The%20Network%20January%202021&utm_content=Lucy%20Saunders%2C%20public%20health%20specialist%20and%20transport%20planner%20explains%20why&dm_i=6EB,771WT,A1PZC8,T5JZB,1

[legalalien]

Do you not think it reads a bit like an attempt to explain / excuse the fact that we?ve created a lot of cycle friendly infrastructure at great expense, but very few people are actually using it?

malumbu Wrote:

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

> Interesting blog from Sustrans on health streets

> with loads of links. Worth flicking through at

> your leisure

>

> https://www.sustrans.org.uk/our-blog/opinion/2021/

> january/it-takes-both-bollards-and-behaviour-chang

> e-initiatives-to-change-how-people-travel/?utm_sou

> rce=Sustrans&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=1208638

> 1_The%20Network%20January%202021&utm_content=Lucy%

> 20Saunders%2C%20public%20health%20specialist%20and

> %20transport%20planner%20explains%20why&dm_i=6EB,7

> 71WT,A1PZC8,T5JZB,1

[snowy]

Really? Try crossing Vauxhall bridge on a bike at rush hour - the current infrastructure of cycle lanes and phased lights is already very very busy.

[legalalien]

I would but I don't actually need to go north of the river and we are in a lockdown :) Instead walked around our local LTN with the dog for 45 mins and saw precisely two bicycles - a dad and his child (about 8-10) both of whom were riding on the pavement despite there being zero cars on the road. But I accept there's a lockdown and this is, as a result, not particularly reliable evidence of potential use, even if it is a bit annoying that we've closed roads to allow cycling and that many cyclists are still using pedestrian space. None of the evidence at present is reliable as an indicator of "normal" traffic and I hope no-one will use it as such, one way or the other.

[Rockets]

I think many of the fears about the way the council handled the implementation of these programmes are being realised: the council's blinkered approach is going to set proper debate to find solutions to the pollution crisis back by years. If a High Court judge can pull apart the mayor's and TFL's implementation they would have a field day with what has gone on locally. I do hope those who have defended the measures to the hilt, without any consideration for their impact on the wider community, think it was all worth it and that at the end of the day those cheerleaders within the council take full responsibility for their actions.

[Spartacus]

If the LTNs are removed , will the newspaper headlines quote

"Cycle Lobby's and Councils forced to backpedal" ?

[legalalien]

Just flicking through the most recent version of Southwark's Econmic Renewal Plan, which is appended to the report for this week's Brexit Panel meeting.

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/g6897/Public%20reports%20pack%20Thursday%2028-Jan-2021%2018.00%20Southwark%20Brexit%20Panel.pdf?T=10

Helpfully they'e included the various links to the decisions on the Dulwich LTNs (about page 34/35), looking at them again, they are indeed very tied into the TFL Plan and include a lot of justification arooun the need for social distancing for COVID and the potential traffic effects of people not using public transport. Looks as though the Equality Impact Assessment was done at Movement Plan policy level rather than in relation to the individual measures.

The Council describes opposition to the closures as " A vocal minority of motorists resisting change and some negative public feedback in terms of increased journey times.", which I don't think is all that appropriate / accurate - but if they want to create a documentary record that sets the scene for future allegations of apparent bias, who's to stop them?

[malumbu]

I think you are a vocal minority but rather than just stir things up I'll see what I can get hold of re: national attitudes. Sorry you will have to wait until next week when I talk to some in the know (don't have contacts in LBS).

[legalalien]

I am not, however a motorist :)

For the purpose of Southwark making its decisions, a national survey is irrelevant. It needs to look at the representations it has received before making that kind of lazy generalisation in relation to the specific schemes mentioned in the report.

[Spartacus]

malumbu Wrote:

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

> I think you are a vocal minority but rather than

> just stir things up I'll see what I can get hold

> of re: national attitudes. Sorry you will have to

> wait until next week when I talk to some in the

> know (don't have contacts in LBS).

That's the issue Malumba, you and the council try and dismiss residents who object as a "vocal minority" yet without a formal and fair consultation there's no evidence to support that's the case

Claiming a national survey shows different doesn't count as 90% of the country don't experience London driving / transport issues so can't be used as a representing group for London.

It's akin to Londoners saying "all Glaswegians need to wear kilts as its what we think they should wear"* we don't live there so why should we be used as a representative voice ?

* not a true example as all Scotsmen wear kilts daily anyway

[march46]

I see Dulwich Alliance are no longer listing the Dulwich Picture Gallery as one of their supporters. Were they not aware they'd be included I wonder?

[Bicknell]

Campaign update from One Dulwich just out. it says that soutthwark says - ?allowing local residents permits to access camera-controlled traffic restrictions would not support our commitment to reducing shorter car journeys.? So all local journeys now have to go on EAst Dulwich Grove, Lordship Lane, Croxted Rd, etc. Whats the point of a review if some of the options have been ruled out?

[Metallic]

So now we see court cases to come on the legality of the LTNs and bus gates. Southwark have been a bit quiet on something that has taken up 111 pages of the Forum, not a peep on any social media links.

I want to know what happens to all the penalty charges so far handed out - wouldn't you think that pending the appeal TfL and the Mayor may or may not get, they would let residents of the whole area know the system is postponed, for the moment or forever, whatever. Including the planter roads. Yet I haven't seen any comment from the usually verbose Messrs McCash, Newens and Leeming in our wards on this subject.

[singalto]

If the Townley road timed restrictions are to do with school coaches, why are they in force when the schools are closed?

[slarti b]

Bicknell Wrote:

> Campaign update from One Dulwich just out... Southwark says - ?allowing local residents permits to access camera-controlled traffic restrictions would not support our commitment to reducing shorter car journeys.?

The scheme proposed by the council in Feb last year for the OHS Phase 3 consultation included permit access for local residents. Has the council policy changed since last year? Alternatively were they just misleading people during teh consultation?

The Phase 3 consultation is still used by the council to justify support for the closure of the DV junction, even though they have not formally published the results. As well as the incorrect and misleading data used during the consultation process it seems we now have to add deceit on the permit scheme.

[slarti b]

singalto Wrote:

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

> If the Townley road timed restrictions are to do with school coaches, why are they in force when

> the schools are closed?

I think the Towley Road timed closure is linked to the similar closures on Dulwich Village. Without it even more traffic would go down Townley. AS it is I suspect the displaced traffic will just make Lordship Lane, Croxted Road and the other DV bypass roads worse.

[legalalien]

Slarti - re permits - that was back when the problem being addressed was through traffic - https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/11871/OHS-Dulwich-Phase-3-FAQ-updated-3rd-February-.pdf : " Most of the traffic through the area is through traffic using residential streets as short?cuts to avoid congestion on the main roads." As you say, the Council has been somewhat..flexible.. about the rationale for the various measures. I think they may have made a mistake in leaping on the COVID justification. Actually that reference to congestion on the main roads is interesting as it indicates the Council were well aware that they would be re-routing traffic onto roads already at saturation point.

Anyone like to bet that whatever the new proposal is, it will involve a CPZ? I don't (or maybe I do) understand why the council is so keen on these when if wants to get rid of cars - surely the solution is simply to remove on street parking altogether (this would also make space for cycle parking). Or if they do have residents' parking permits, to limit them to those without off street parking?

[exdulwicher]

The scheme proposed by the council in Feb last year for the OHS Phase 3 consultation included permit access for local residents. Has the council policy changed since last year? Alternatively were they just misleading people during teh consultation?

They were different schemes - the originally proposed OHS was put on hold and a similar set of options (although not an identical scheme) was put in place through the emergency funding granted by Government. IIRC, there was actually something in the T&Cs of that funding to say it could not be used to push already planned options; it was specifically designed to be temporary measures (so LTNs which can be installed, amended and removed relatively quickly and cheaply) rather than the full scale measures of OHS.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/making-traffic-regulation-orders-during-coronavirus-covid-19

Camera controlled / permit systems are the worst of all worlds to be honest. You don't get any of the active travel benefits of an actual LTN because the road is effectively still open to through traffic, it's just that it's exclusively for residents. It actually creates more of a ghetto / exclusive gated compound feel because the residents are not remotely impacted by it so they'll continue to use cars for short journeys (the very thing you're trying to avoid).

The only way they do work is if it's specifically a bus gate and it's either too expensive or too inconvenient to install those Rising Bollards (the ones that routinely get broken by idiots attempting to tailgate buses through them which then closes the road for a week while they're repaired). ANPR cameras have become a much easier option for those. But using them outside of very specific conditions (like a bus gate) risks creating extra confusion for drivers plus a whole load of extra work within councils in managing permits, signage, appeals and running costs plus the inevitable negative publicity.

Rather amusingly, an opposition councillor in Ealing was trumpeting ANPR gates as the answer to everything a few months ago; now that they're in place he's outraged that the council have "raked in" tens of thousands of pounds in fines from "poor innocent motorists".