LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[AylwardS]

Anyone interested In response to Trinidad?s question there is a consultation until 11 July https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/dulwich-review/

[LTN BooHoo]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Yes there is truth in that Abe...my local Labour

> Ward voted to keep LTNs and the very active

> members live in an LTN. I think the ?square?

> though is definitely a bit of a two councillor

> show....with one very vocal person.

Who is the very vocal person? Not the late Alistair Hanton, who has been pressing for sustainable transport for years?

[trinidad]

Thank you AylwardS

[heartblock]

We need an emergency poster, mmh interesting about Court, but one way...which way? East to West or t?other way?

[alice]

Well Court could make a pair with Calton, using gilkes close(?) to get to village. Rather than as before where poor traffic lights etc create faux congestion.

Tho my preference is to make court lane a bus route and have a proper bike lane.

Gilkes and Calton could each be 1 way.

[LTN BooHoo]

alice Wrote:

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

> Well Court could make a pair with Calton, using

> gilkes close(?) to get to village. Rather than as

> before where poor traffic lights etc create faux

> congestion.

>

> Tho my preference is to make court lane a bus

> route and have a proper bike lane.

> Gilkes and Calton could each be 1 way.

That?s very sensible Alice! Love that idea... It would serve residents living on those privileged roads right and risk the safety of children at the same time. Maybe we should campaign to get Calton and Gilkes reclassified as A roads?

Re the bus route - where would the busses go and who would they serve?

[alice]

Your logic is strange why on earth would my idea endanger children? With a one way road there?s room for a proper safe bike lane which would be great for children and adults to get to school/work. Whether or not gilkes etc are reclassified is somewhat irrelevant. Underhill road is narrower and has buses.

P4 could be rerouted this would avoid the ridiculously slow journey in the south circular section of the route. This route would still go past the lordship Lane estate and provide an easy link for people who live in the library section of dulwich to get to lewisham or Brixton.

If you want people to get out of cars as you say, you have to give a little and having a useful bus route would help along with proper bike lanes

[Rockets]

I see Court Lane seems to be being resurfaced today - is this in preparation for the grand re-opening.....;-)

[legalalien]

Perhaps preparing it to be marked up for paid car parking? Heard some parents discussing what a useful car park the Calton Road end of it had become, on the weekend - plus various further anecdotes about people keeping one car at home and one car on the street on the other side of the border! Have I told the story about someone who has bought a second small car so that they can do just that?

[exdulwicher]

Have I told the story about someone who has bought a second small car so that they can do just that?

A few years ago, Athens had a policy to combat air pollution by specifying certain number plates per day (only cars with odd numbered plates allowed one day, only even plated cars the next and so on). A lot of people went out and bought a second car with the opposite plates so they could carry on driving each day...

[legalalien]

See attached. 1979.

[alice]

Resurfacing? Conway again it?ll all have to be redone when the bus and bike lanes go in.

[Siduhe]

I'm trying really hard not to jump to conclusions about "them and us" but wtf? Why on earth does Court Lane need resurfacing - it's the smoothest, widest road I know in Southwark. It doesn't have any of the potholes, raised man-covers and cracked tarmac that Wood Vale, Underhill and Melford (and plenty of other streets nearby) do. Am I missing something here?

[jazzer]

Alice is that speculation, wishful thinking or do you have any actual evidence to support your statement?

[exdulwicher]

It doesn't have any of the potholes, raised man-covers and cracked tarmac that Wood Vale, Underhill and Melford (and plenty of other streets nearby) do. Am I missing something here?

The register of roadworks says it's relocation of a speed hump.

[Rockets]

Ex- where are the moving it from or to? It's a bit chaotic around there at the moment as Court Lane is closed and Thames Water has turned up and closed the bottom of Woodwarde Road to re-dig the road they dug up a couple of months ago.

[Bicknell]

half way through the duwlich review

deadline july 11

still no data

still no recordings of public meetings

still no anwsers to Qs at meetings

whats gonig on?

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/dulwich-review#:~:text=Dulwich%20review%20Dulwich%20Streetspace%20review%20is%20now%20live,and%20road%20safety%20for%20people%20walking%20and%20cycling.

[Milan05]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Ex- where are the moving it from or to? It's a bit

> chaotic around there at the moment as Court Lane

> is closed and Thames Water has turned up and

> closed the bottom of Woodwarde Road to re-dig the

> road they dug up a couple of months ago.

Hi, it is being relocated as one of the houses on the evens side is having a drop kerb for parking.. soooo, a street lamp post has been moved first (you can see the old one and the new one - probably the old one is waiting to be decommissioned). And the speed bump was in front of the house so is also being moved to create the drop kerb. I think you have to pay Southwark for all of this work.

[legalalien]

You can watch today's Court of Appeal proceedings in the taxi driver v TfL case (about the Bishopsgate no-taxi bus lanes) on youtube if you are keen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4b1edR4pns&t=5838s

It's not the most exciting watch ever. TfL barrister was good, just started watching UTAG chap. Seems to have got off to quite a shaky start.

ETA is warming up now (about two hours into the second clip) Not actually saying TfL acted in bad faith, but they did have ?an ambition? that the plans should become permanent. One judge a bit concerned that original judgment went off on a bit of a tangent from the grounds pleaded, with findings of bad faith.. ?Mr Monk was never called and it was never put to him that he was a lying toerag??

On a different note, proceedings don?t exactly scream "diversity in the legal profession", I have to say.

Edited again to add- if anyone out there is geeky enough to watch, gets interesting around 2:11 into the second session. Some concern about first instance judge effectively finding bad faith when that wasn?t pleaded at first instance and evidence wasn?t given on that point as a result. Very technical area of law. Get the feeling that they may allow the temporary Bishopsgate

order on the narrow basis that it is temporary and will fall away, and won?t agree to the quashing of the general guidance to boroughs on the basis that bad faith wasn?t pleaded and the judge at first instance didn?t have enough evidence of a TfL ?Trojan horse to get LTNs through?

theory. Not my area but just trying to read the judges?)

[Bicknell]

less than 4 wks to go to fill in survey

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/dulwich-review#:~:text=Dulwich%20review%20Dulwich%20Streetspace%20review%20is%20now%20live,and%20road%20safety%20for%20people%20walking%20and%20cycling

[legalalien]

Watching today?s court of appeal proceedings (on delayed viewing). Interesting discussion of whether or not TfL?s general guidance should have been subject to an EqIA (which would by its nature be very general, one judge suggesting that it makes sense for the assessment to happen at a much more granular level). Has suggested that requiring the guidance to signpost the need for boroughs to carry out an EqIA would be infantilising the authorities to which it was directed.

(If only he knew that some authorities didn?t actually bother with granular, street by street specific EqIAs). Doesn?t feel like this is going well for the taxis - but even if that is the case there is the potential for some passages in the judgment that push more responsibilities down to the local authorities.

(planning to watch more later)

[legalalien]

In fact one of the judges has just suggested that it is common ground that an EqIA assessment would have to be done at a borough level for a specific scheme. Eg for a particular traffic order. (The discussion is whether the quality of that assessment would be any different had the TfL guidance been any clearer on the point).

[heartblock]

I dug around Southwark's own traffic report from 2018. Although it stated that East Dulwich Grove had one of the highest pedestrian and cycling accident levels in the area, did they consult ED Grove residents before putting in LTNs....No. They consulted Court Lane and Court Lane Gardens Residents? Association (COLAR, The Dulwich Society and Dulwich Village Forum.

They also stated in the Dulwich Area Traffic Management Study

Final Report April 2018

"A proposal similar to the exclusion zone was already brought up by residents in response to the Quietway consultation. Residents proposed to restrict the entry of traffic into a defined zone around the Dulwich Quietway ? particularly around Calton Avenue and Turney Road ? at peak times when pupils are making their way to and from the area?s schools (7:30am to 9am and 3pm to 5pm).

The intention of a timed traffic restriction would be to take traffic away from the residential roads during school times forcing it to stay on to the main roads. However, since a significant part of the existing traffic in residential areas is generated by parents dropping their children at school, this solution risks shifting the drop-off activity onto main roads with implications for congestion and safety of children"

Which is exactly what residents who want the LTNs removed have said - traffic has increased and is congested and unsafe for children.

[Rockets]

Heartblock - that document remains the most damning piece of evidence against the council and their foolhardy implementation of the LTNs - it really is the smoking gun to the ludicrousness of the decision to put these LTNs in. Their actions with the LTNs completely contradict and ignore their own advice and conclusions in that, and other, report/s.

It begs the question why did they go ahead with it - who got in their ear and made them think this was a good idea - which lobby groups were involved and why and what influence/leverage did they exert on the council and councillors?

[Bicknell]

just saw this

think these are the lbby groups

https://www.onedulwich.uk/news/who-influences-southwark-council-about-dulwich-road-measures