LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[heartblock]

What a complete mess. I think my main concern is the amateurish way Southwark approached the whole scheme, without any high level thinking, consultation or planning it seems. No equality assessment, no consultation, no thought of residential main roads.

Now I think they know that it is having very negative effects as the data emerges and complaints from residents pile up, but they don?t know how to undo the damage without having the wrath of the residents on gated roads.

The gated communities are obviously enjoying a peaceful road and a rise in their house price. I?m sure if I lived in an LTN I wouldn?t want it removed.

The whole episode has put neighbour against neighbour, haves and have-nots, clean air for some, more pollution for others. I can?t think of a more divisive act at a local level to make some feel ignored and second rate citizens and others feel rewarded due to their postcode. I still cannot believe a Labour Council I stupidly voted for had carried out such an unequal and negatively impactful act.

[legalalien]

yes, everyone looked pretty uncomfortable about that 51 out of 170 figure. He did say that there might be some variation in what was being reported, I think? But this is a pretty substantial proportion of the overall number.

slarti b Wrote:

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

> @legalalien

> A good set of notes and I completely agree with

> your view that councillors are showing much more

> concern about the impact of road closures on

> surrounding streets.

>

> A couple of points on the comments by Darren from

> London Ambulance Service.

> - I think he said average response times (across

> London?) had increased from 14 to 16 minutes

> since traffic measures put in, though this may be

> down to fewer cars on road as fewer people are

> using public transport.

>

> - He also said they have recorded 170 incidents

> across all London boroughs where traffic measures

> had caused delays that had adversely impacted the

> patient. Of those 51 were in Southwark, if so

> that is very worrying. He said Islington, where

> they have camera controlled closures, had only

> 1(one) such incident.

[legalalien]

Rockets - if they put cameras in at Calton/Court Lane, then they'd presumably have to let the blue badge people through as well as the occasional emergency services vehicle - which would rule out Dulwich Square. Might that be the reason?

[slarti b]

@Dulwiuch Central - thanks for spotting typo, have corrected.

[Rockets]

legalalien Wrote:

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

> Rockets - if they put cameras in at Calton/Court

> Lane, then they'd presumably have to let the blue

> badge people through as well as the occasional

> emergency services vehicle - which would rule out

> Dulwich Square. Might that be the reason?

Yes and it could also be that it is the intersection of 3 junctions so if you wanted to retain the Square you would need to put 3 set of removable bollards in place and that would likely not be supported by the emergency services as it means having to move at least 2 to get access. I am very surprised that they are still immovable - perhaps they have assessed that it is not a route used by emergency services.

[legalalien]

Also worth mentioning, Zero Emission Zones came up in the ULEZ talk and the idea of ultra-local ZEZs. I wouldn't be surprised if Southwark started thinking about these soon. There are already some ULEV street schemes in Hackney

https://hackney.gov.uk/ulev-streets

[snowy]

For the policy geeks amongst us, the Parliament Transport committee is on today as part of their Reforming Public Transport inquiry:

https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/f4a70a38-f9ff-4284-b1ff-b710bcc256a8

Including the Federation of Small Businesses advocating road pricing.

[legalalien]

Just watching the last part of the meeting now where they start to formulate recommendations / areas to gather evidence and more focus. Cllr Ochere has suggested something around impact of air pollution on schools, particularly those with high FSM / ESL (in conjunction with Education Scrutiny team)- refers back to risk of displacement and schools on main roads: also, that together with Local Economy commission, should work to try and understand impact of LTNs on local business. Cllr Flinn wondering whether should be considering whether to have limits on impacts on schools / main roads negatively impacted by traffic measures, to have a set of agreed measures so that plans can be risk assessed.

Cllr Neale wants the commission to look at parks and trees. Also recycling and waste management eg how efficient recycling is.

Jeremy Leach (why is he a coopted member with the ability to give input to the agenda - does anyone know?). Emerging narrative around Southwark roads and TFL roads and what happens to traffic that goes on TfL roads. Charging for parking. PTAL ratings (better to address low PTAL than charge for parking). Sustainable freight.

Cllr Morris - does this commission have a role in monitoring planning dept/ committees to make sure developments are delivering what they say they are going to. Both about checking and also about what is being approved in the first place. Particular reference to carbon considerations.

Cllr Flynn. How does council need to do to take account of changes in work patterns that may arise as a result of COvID.

Cllr Newens - need work on how to encourage people to get on a bicycle in the first place. How to get people to embrace active travel in communities not inclined to do so.

Cllr Werner - look at nests where online shopping is delivered to hubs.

One strange thing about this meeting - the agenda said there was going to be a specific discussion of the Dulwich LTN and unless I zoned out for a bit, there just wasn?t, they launched straight into the Councillor Rose presentation. Then if you look carefully at the Cllr Rose presentation slides, the footer on the slides varies from ?dulwich experimental measures Part 2? to ?Walworth Streetspace Experimental Measures?. Strange. Perhaps a change of content relatively late in the piece?

[alice]

I can only take that omission as a positive one.

[Bicknell]

Rockets, whenyou said about the DV junction planters"I am very surprised that they are still immovable - perhaps they have assessed that it is not a route used by emergency services." you were joking, right?

southwark didnt assess anything. but the ambulance service has been asking them for months to chnage the planters to camera so ambulances can come through

[Rockets]

Bicknell - I was hoping someone had an answer as I cannot see any reason why the council have not replaced the immovable bollards by now given the lobbying from the emergency services and the impact they have on response times. It seems negligent for them not to have changed them. Does anyone know why? Could it be because they may not be able to give a licence for a music festival in a square if it is designated an emergency route - someone must know the reason.

[legalalien]

I think an emergency and potentially blue badge access route combined with a major cycle corridor is inconsistent with a square. Indeed some (including cyclists) might think that the major cycle corridor is inconsistent with a square. Would be interested in hearing from those supporting the experimental scheme as to how important they see the square as being to the scheme as a whole. Incidentally, did I hear Cllr Leeming mention a quote for the square in the region of ?40k at the most recent south multiward forum thing? It was in the context of a much smaller award for planters or something in that area. Not on youtube so I can't double check, but maybe someone else listened live? It was a bit of a throwaway line.

[Bicknell]

i think councillor leming was talking about teh grant for the old stone beds either side of the road in court lane (outside the houses either side) they didnt give teh total asked for. and he said something like "at some point in the next few years the greening of court lane wil cost a lot more than that" which sounded like theyd already decided the closed junction was permanent

[alice]

When they are removed it would give a superb cycle/bus lane down court lane.

[Concerned2021]

At last. Something that gave me hope that people may start to listen

[snowy]

Choked Up is calling on the mayoral candidates to dramatically improve air quality along the capital?s major roads, the so-called ?red routes?, which make up 5% of London?s roads but carry a third of its traffic.

Choked Up co-founders, from left, Nyeleti Brauer-Maxaeia, Anjali Raman-Middleton, Destiny Boka Batesa. Photograph: Martin Godwin/The Guardian

They are calling for a reduction in goods vehicle and private car use, and a renewed focus on ?a world-class walking and cycling network, as well as affordable and accessible zero-emission public transport?.

[alice]

All sounded good till I saw the words ?world class?

[intexasatthe moment]

Is Court Lane being considered for "greening" ? What exactly is this ? Sounds nice ,how can Barry Road get some ?

[northernmonkey]

I don't think its being considered for greening - my understanding was that the initial grant was towards repairing the stone planters at the bottom. I walked past the other day and they are in a terrible state. Don't think its anywhere near enough though!

[slarti b]

The Lib Dem Councillors in the North of Southwark are proposing amendments to the temproary LTNs to reflect the concerns of local residents. See https://victorchamberlain.mycouncillor.org.uk/2021/03/11/proposed-amendments-to-the-great-suffolk-street-low-traffic-neighbourhood-and-the-blackfriars-road-low-traffic-neighbourhood/#page-content

It is unfortunate that our own (Labour) councillors prefer to ignore their local residents who suggest amendents or improvements and reject any attempt at compromise. They are much happier giving ?3,000 of Council\ratepayers money to a highly nebulous, anonymous organisation for a party in Margy Newens plaza!

[Spartacus]

It's interesting to see the tweet slarti b ,

The mention of discussions with the highways officers implied that they have the true power in these schemes and the councillors can only input to the idea.

I could be wrong but it feels like this is being run by council officers and they can play the long game as their jobs are safe but the councillors get voted in or out every five years.

[malumbu]

The Lib Dem councillor states 'In response to the issues that you have been raising with us about the difficulties of making journeys in the local area, we have been in discussion with highways officers, about what changes could made to the LTN to address these concerns, without negating the intentions of the LTN to discourage rat running and unnecessary short car trips.'

So good to see that they still support LTNs, and more of a case of fine tuning. Some on this thread just want the schemes removed.

To go back, again(sigh), to pollution, it feels as if some of you only became aware of this in the last few months. Others, like me, have been campaigning and taking action for years. If it is important to you, rather than just a convenient stick to beat Southwark/LTNs, then please reduce the amount of driving, unnecessary deliveries etc etc.

[slarti b]

@Spartacus. From what I have seen, in the OHS consultatations, presentations, email exchanges, on social media etc etc, the Councillors, both our local ones and the whole Cabinet, are the driving force behind the scehemes and the use of Covid funding to impose them without consultation. The officers do what they are instructed to do by the Cabinet ( hopefully subject to appropriate legal advice).

The creation of Margy Newens Plaza, never mentioned in OHS, seems to be a particular fixation of our 2 local councillors, hence their use of ratepayer money to fund a party there.

Personally I would prefer this to be about the needs and concerns of local residents and for it not to be a party political argument. But when our (Labour) Village Ward councillors, the Southern wards grouping of (100% Labour) Councillors and the (Labour) Council Cabinet seem happy to ignore their constituents and toe the party line without dissent, it is difficult to see it any other way. And of course our (Labour) MP, whose election agent is the leader of the Southern Ward councillors seems happy to acquiese in that.

Oh well, only 15 months till the next council elections ;-)

[ab29]

15 more months of this?? :( Slarti, who are the 2 councillors obsessed with this new vanity project (Plaza)?

[Rockets]

malumbu Wrote:

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

> The Lib Dem councillor states 'In response to the

> issues that you have been raising with us about

> the difficulties of making journeys in the local

> area, we have been in discussion with highways

> officers, about what changes could made to the LTN

> to address these concerns, without negating the

> intentions of the LTN to discourage rat running

> and unnecessary short car trips.'

>

> So good to see that they still support LTNs, and

> more of a case of fine tuning. Some on this

> thread just want the schemes removed.

>

> To go back, again(sigh), to pollution, it feels as

> if some of you only became aware of this in the

> last few months. Others, like me, have been

> campaigning and taking action for years. If it is

> important to you, rather than just a convenient

> stick to beat Southwark/LTNs, then please reduce

> the amount of driving, unnecessary deliveries etc

> etc.

Malumbu - they support the intention of the LTNs not the LTNs themselves - that is an important distinction. Many of us support the intention of the LTNs (reducing car usage) not the execution of that via LTNs.

Slarti - I sense this is why some on Twitter are now referring to these as #LabourLTNs.....