LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[ab29]

PS. And have you noticed - she was driving around IN A CAR. Doesn't live in the area and yet bores everyone to death with tiresome comments and dare to lecture people affected by LTNs - and then drives around Dulwich in a car, adding to the air pollution.

[first mate]

Can you "cut legally through Brockwell Park" in a car?

[Penguin68]

There is queuing traffic on Underhill outside my house right now.

[Siduhe]

I'm pretty confident that malumbu tends to commute on two wheels!

Underhill is a long road. The bits that seem particularly bad at peak times following the introduction of the Court Lane LTN in the part of Underhill from Lordship Lane by the Dulwich Common turn off, Melford, Wood Vale, Langton Rise, up to Overhill Road. It then gets better in my experience as you head towards Ryedale and Uplands.

As I've posted recently - some of the most recent traffic is partly as a result of the closure of Melford Road, but even before that (and the works on Wood Vale) it has been much worse at peak times as people try to work out ways to avoid Lordship Lane and the traffic which has been directed away from Court Lane, Dulwich Village. So it's possible that both views are right but I have to say the weight of feedback from residents who experience the road, day in day out, is so consistent that it's difficult to think we have all got it wrong or are imagining the change.

[malumbu]

Underhill was quiet today at 8.30, I only go down to the roundabout with Upland so perhaps the rest of it is very busy. No speeding cars today which was nice. One person on their mobile on my return journey, something I don't see that often. The passenger yelled at me, so didn't think it safe to get into a debate about this being illegal.

The Southern end is an interesting study on traffic management as more traffic used to be directed down Wood Vale and the rest of Underhill until right turns were banned onto the South Circular many many years ago. Traffic therefore uses Honor Oak Road (including passing Fairlawn school), which feels more like a cart track. So Southwark displaced traffic into Lewisham. Discuss.....

[Bicknell]

dulwich alliance fighting fund building up quickly

www.gofundme.com/f/help-end-road-closures-in-dulwich

[first mate]

Sidhue and Penguin,

From your posts it is clear there is a big problem with traffic on sections of Underhill at various times of the day and this is the result of LTNs. I suspect not many are being dissuaded by this.

[legalalien]

Southwark Air Quality report part 2, April 2021 now up on the website in advance of tomorrow evening?s meeting. Haven?t read it yet.

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s96603/Air%20quality%20part%20two%20draft%20review%20report.pdf

[Raeburn]

Forget who was asking about more secure bike storage, but Southwark are inviting input into the process;

https://cyclehangarsinsouthwark.commonplace.is/

[first mate]

Thanks for this ll- required reading.

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s96603/Air%20quality%20part%20two%20draft%20review%20report.pdf

legalalien Wrote:

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

> Southwark Air Quality report part 2, April 2021

> now up on the website in advance of tomorrow

> evening?s meeting. Haven?t read it yet.

>

> https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s9660

> 3/Air%20quality%20part%20two%20draft%20review%20re

> port.pdf

[malumbu]

For some light relief an interesting article about road user charging, particularly in light of the move to electric vehicles. https://greenertransportsolutions.com/insight/re-charging-britains-road-policy/?utm_source=Transport+Times&utm_campaign=ba4cf607ca-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_10_30_11_03_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c0cafa3f39-ba4cf607ca-250793593

As this thread shows how concerned many are about air quality I recommend getting involved in what can be done for the country as a whole. Quoting from the article: We stand at a crossroads on UK roads policy. The more we incentivise the take up of electric vehicles the more it costs in government grants and the less revenue the Treasury collects in fuel duty. We are facing a black hole of around ?40 billion in our public finances when the fleet is fully electric.

We need to find a new way to pay for roads that plugs this gap and is right for tackling climate change, poor air quality, congestion, and the inequity of those on low income being priced out of purchasing an electric vehicle and is right for the public finances.

Road pricing has been one of the best fiscal changes that any government could have made over the last generation. It has always been the most effective way to tackle congestion and pollution. The showstopper is that it has been seen as politically too difficult. What has changed, however, is that we now face a new dilemma.

[legalalien]

Thanks. Agree that road user charging is the way forward (and that the cost of on demand deliveries needs to be passed on to consumers). As a non- driver and someone who doesn't like shopping much, amazon was like catnip to me. Have been weaning myself off it during lockdown, with some success - not entirely but at least aggregating orders as far as possible and accepting that delivery doesn't need to be instant. You're right that we could usefully have a separate thread on this.

[Chick]

malumbu Wrote:

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

>

> We need to find a new way to pay for roads that

> plugs this gap and is right for tackling climate

> change, poor air quality, congestion, and the

> inequity of those on low income being priced out

> of purchasing an electric vehicle and is right for

> the public finances.

>

> Road pricing has been one of the best fiscal

> changes that any government could have made over

> the last generation. It has always been the most

> effective way to tackle congestion and pollution.

> The showstopper is that it has been seen as

> politically too difficult. What has changed,

> however, is that we now face a new dilemma.

why do you want to tax us more? I pay a fortune to drive and even more with rip off council's fleecing us?

[SE22_2020er]

Hi Chick (somehow it seems wrong writing that! :-) ),

I think the point is not to tax more but to tax differently. So if you use your car once every month then you should pay less than someone who uses it every day. Thereby, you can actually drive peoples' behaviour by making them pay more for consuming/polluting more. This is why the congestion charge has been successful - "Sure you can drive in central London and pollute the air we breathe, but you need to pay for the privilege to do so".

We've completely stopped driving and now just use public transport and cycle in our family because we couldn't afford to keep our car once ULEZ comes in (it was diesel) so we sold it at the beginning of the year before it came worthless.

I'm probably the only person on this thread keeping my fingers crossed that congestion charging is introduced across London, but I personally think that it's right that people pay for what they use/pollute.

[exdulwicher]

why do you want to tax us more? I pay a fortune to drive and even more with rip off council's fleecing us?

It's not being charged more - or at least if it's done right it's not.

The report is talking about replacing one source of tax revenue (VED and fuel duty) with another source (road user charging). At some point it'll have to happen with the shift to EV - they already pay ?0 VED and they obviously use no fuel so it's a massive black hole in finances. It won't happen overnight but it'll be a gradual decline in tax revenue over the next 20 years as petrol and diesel is phased out.

It's not necessarily about "driving" or "use of the roads", more just a general taxation issue.

Currently, roads are paid for out of general taxes; there's no ring-fencing of VED or fuel duty to be specifically spent on the roads. All taxes just go into the central pot for Boris to redecorate his flat and distribute to all his mates. But if you're going to lose ?30bn of annual revenue, you need to find another source for it.

[legalalien]

Just sat down to watch last night's Environment Scrutiny Commission meeting. The first bit is missing, but the discussion of the Air Quality Report part 2 starts around 15:25.

Just watched not-a-councillor Jeremy Leach give his comments on the report, from about 17:00. Horrified at the reference to "60s type visions" and successfully demands that be taken out. Puts a couple of paragraphs of suggested wording he'd like to be in the report "in the chat" for councillors to consider (given this is a public meeting, should the wording not be disclosed to the public? This is something I've wondered about before in terms of the sidebar chat function for these online meetings). And interestingly, at about 20:30 expresses his consider that the implementation of potential new changes to the structure of residential parking is not coming forward in the way "we've been promised it would do". Who has been promised what? Living Streets? Is this an indication that the original "parking document" with the firm dates for roll out of the CPZ borough wide was in fact a real plan, rather than a mistake that was then replaced with a more wishy-washy document?

ETA: Cllr Ochere has the patience of a saint and remains my favourite Labour councillor.

Cllr Werner suggested that the council do some long-term health monitoring about the impact of the LTNs on respiratory health. She had in mind the beneficial impact caused by less pollution. Cllr Ochere suggests a key purpose would be the impact of those attending schools on main roads. A general statement going in about the importance of monitoring the impact on health outcomes.

Cllr Hamvas makes a useful point about the importance of good PTAL and ensuring bus routes serve schools properly eg don't stop 3 stops before the terminal stop near the school.

Cllr Morris (LD) makes some interesting observations about the need to monitor impacts of policies on car ownership rather than just trips. Apparently in the Borough area the council sell more parking permits than there are parking spaces!

Will update when have watched the rest....

[Siduhe]

At @legalalien, I have a FOI request out with the council about the "draft" CPZ plan and related communications that has just been rejected. I will be appealing...

[legalalien]

For anyone with an interest in parking or the way the council is going about things, would highly recommend watching this meeting, especially from about 1:00 to 1:15. Discussion of Jeremy's "Recommendation 15", which, although we don't get to see the wording (it's in the chat), seems to be a souped up version of a previous recommendation about a policy for emissions based parking charges, that Jeremy wants to specifically refer to diesel vehicles, among other things.

Cllr Hamvas seems to have pointed out on chat that diesel owners are already hit by ULEZ, and Cllr Morris goes into bat for existing diesel owners who are already being hit by ULEZ and increased congestion charge - is it fair for them to pay an increased parking charge as well, given that many of the owners concerned are some of the more disadvantaged residents. (those who can pay, will pay - and is this fair?".

Cllr Morris also asks about whether the council has considered things like app based on demand buses in the more "rural" parts of the borough, like Dulwich. (this doesn't get put in the recommendations but there is a suggestion it should be followed up with officers).

Jeremy is really worried that his plan for diesel charging will fall off the radar.

Cllr Newens raises the idea that charges should be based on size of vehicles (SUVs bad) and that there should be a recommendation to that effect. Cllr Ochere - cementing his place as my favourite LC, points out that the Commission really shouldn't be making up recommendations without some sort of evidence base.

Ongoing discussion, some on chat which we can't see. Jeremy doesn't want his recommendation softened, it seems. It is based on a recommendation last year, so consensus ends up to repeat the previous recommendation about the need for emissions based parking charges and the idea that a range of stated factors should be considered in formulating the policy, which will be considered and come back for formal recommendation in the next municipal year.

Now to watch the final read through of the recommendations...

[legalalien]

Siduhe Wrote:

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

> At @legalalien, I have a FOI request out with the

> council about the "draft" CPZ plan and related

> communications that has just been rejected. I

> will be appealing...

Yell if you need a hand trawling through the ICO guidance for the relevant references etc.

[Abe_froeman]

Surely the chat is also subject to freedom of info. Who is this Jeremy Leach? He doesnt seem to be an elected official. Does he work for Southwark council?

[legalalien]

He is a coopted member of the Environmental Scrutiny Commission and the chair of London Living Streets, inter alia

https://lrscconference.org.uk/index.php/agenda-speakers/jeremy-leach-co-founder-action-vision-zero/.

Seems to be driving a lot of the policy tbh and has been engaged in it with the council for a while

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=13101. Involved in something called the southwark Walking Joint Steering Group, which if you google the minutes, seems to be driving a fair part of the policy agenda. And historically also involved in running Southwark Cyclists (eg https://southwarkcyclists.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/20140328_CJSG_Minutes_published.pdf)

[kiera]

Dulwich Society news-"LTN Interim communication & engagement

officer: The Council has recently advertised for a

staff member to promote the new LTN programme

both externally to residents and internally to staff,

?to deliver an outward facing engagement

programme to ensure that local people and

stakeholders are informed, listened to and involved

in the project.?"

[legalalien]

Interesting use of "promote". Perhaps "raise awareness of" might have been a more politic choice of words.

[Spartacus]

Possibly / hopefully a short lived role !

[heartblock]

Promote...mmmhhhh well. So can create a new post with salary costs etc. Yet unable to provide pollution monitors for boundary residential school rds due to cost...