LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[mockingbird]

wulfhound Wrote:

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

> Unlike OHS, this programme is a trial - they can't

> make it permanent without a full consultation, at

> which point those affected will be able to report

> their lived experience of the outcome.

Incorrect - Experimental Orders do not require consultation and therefore the whole concern about Southwark taking advantage of C-19 measures and avoiding disclosure of the OHSD results and impacts

[northernmonkey]

Thanks Slartib

Just picking up on the point about 'only displacing peak traffic' - doesn't this just end up with the 'worst of all worlds' for everyone. Seemingly the issue from One Dulwich is displacement - but your solution does nothing to address this during peak hours, whilst the maintaining open roads during offpeak hours does not bring the walking and cycling benefits that would be realised with the council's proposal.

In additions @Dande - i see that you again have pointed to concerns for elderly neighbours and shopkeepers. I was just wondering what those concerns were? In the existing plans there aren't any roads that won't be accessible by car or any homes 'stranded' and the shops will still have parking outside on dulwich village and accessible elsewhere for others.

slarti b Wrote:

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

> bels123 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > dande - ref your point 3. I?m interested to know

> how you think the onedulwich alternative tackles

> > the displaced traffic you?re worried would be an

> issue under the council?s plan?

> >

> The Council itself has not stated how they will

> tackle the displaced traffic under their own

> scheme. Any questions about this have been

> brushed aside with airy comments about

> evaporation, though by their own estimate over

> 6,000 vehicles will be displaced onto "major"

> roads. This means EDG, SOuthern part of DV,

> Croxted rd, Lordship Lane, Half Moon Lane, Burbage

> South, South Circular etc. This a major flaw in

> their scheme.

>

> All I can say is that if the DV closure is

> restricted only at peak times the amount of

> displaced traffic will be less than under the

> COuncil's scheme.

>

> Edited to add

> If you can provide detailed data for teh traffic

> movements though the junction, ie O&D data or

> traffic count data for all arms by time period we

> can certainly come up with some estimates. There

> is a certain amount of data in the "evidence pack"

> and supporting schedules but it is quite

> selective. And the Council and Councillors are

> generally very reluctant to publish full

> underlying data, presumably in case it undermines

> their assertions.

[exdulwicher]

mockingbird Wrote:

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

> wulfhound Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > Unlike OHS, this programme is a trial - they

> can't

> > make it permanent without a full consultation,

> at

> > which point those affected will be able to

> report

> > their lived experience of the outcome.

>

> Incorrect - Experimental Orders do not require

> consultation and therefore the whole concern about

> Southwark taking advantage of C-19 measures and

> avoiding disclosure of the OHSD results and

> impacts

Experimental Orders do not require consultation but to make them permanent after the stated time, that DOES require consultation.

[Abe_froeman]

.

[wulfhound]

Experimental Orders do not require consultation but to make them permanent after the stated time, that DOES require consultation.

Seems fair to me - worth pointing out that consultations aren't supposed to be a popularity contest - it shouldn't be about how many in favour or against - it should be "does it achieve the aims of the council's strategies, without causing undue hardship, disproportionate damage to businesses" & suchlike.

Whether they actually play it that way is a different question, but anybody whose life is made materially worse during the trial (whether due to longer journeys, displaced traffic, loss of trade) should have a right to be heard and their circumstances taken in to consideration.

I personally don't see the harm in trying it out for a few months with cheap-and-cheerful materials which can be easily (re)moved if necessary. The schools are still largely out, the main roads are quieter than usual outside rush hour. Don't even think about expensive permanent works until it's been tried though, as it's reasonable to think that alterations might be needed.

[exdulwicher]

I personally don't see the harm in trying it out for a few months with cheap-and-cheerful materials. The schools are still largely out, the main roads are quieter than usual outside rush hour. Don't even think about expensive permanent works until it's been tried though, as it's reasonable to think that alterations might be needed.

For road schemes, I've long been a fan of the "do it cheap and try it, then do it right" approach. Councils could save themselves a fortune and buy themselves a lot of goodwill with constituents if they said:

here's the problem, here's our intended solution which will hopefully have the following effects, we'll put it in using these temporary measures and look at the impact over [timeframe]

And then come back in 6, 12, 18 months and consult on it using their data and the experiences of residents / constituents. Residents give the absolute close up nitty gritty of it (albeit on a largely anecdotal level), the general data gives the wider feel around how much traffic is displaced elsewhere. You end up with a collaborative approach that responds well to (and actually fosters) respect between councils and residents, tests various options with minimum disruption and then picks the best one to be made permanent.

Rarely used though as it spreads the spending out and an awful lot of council funding is grant money that's ringfenced for a particular scheme. Even if you then have to come back and dig it all up again 3 years later cos it's rubbish. Government spending on transport is an utter joke. Short-termist "bid for money" processes that pitch council against council, all desperately bidding for a piece of a small pie allowing them to do one junction or a single stretch of road.

That's not Southwark at fault, it's central Government / DfT.

[wulfhound]

@exdulwicher

Agree, with a couple of provisos.

Firstly, that people trust the council to keep to their word on the "do it right" bit, and not allow cheaply-done temporary schemes to become permanent by the back-door. Public mood here and elsewhere is pretty sceptical about the council and politicians generally... personally I think people are mostly too sceptical about local politicians (who are mostly trying their best, even if we don't always agree with their views), and not sceptical enough about national ones (less said about them, the better).. but in any case, there needs to be trust for this to work.

Secondly, that they set some clear and representative criteria that a scheme can be held to account on. Bus journey time delays and air quality measurements on the roads suffering displaced traffic are probably the most important one; traffic volumes on residential roads outside the scheme boundary are another. They have to be able to define "works" and "doesn't work" and be accountable to those measures.

[Bicknell]

Seems sensible to me, what they say www.onedulwich.uk. Nothing on the roads round here sometimes. Take it slowly I think. Try things out.

[rollflick]

The experimental traffic orders to close the streets clearly need to be made to apply 24/7, as indeed they were when made last week. The way these orders are designed is that they can be loosened (e.g. exceptions added) rather than tightened during the experimental period. So if there really are disproportionate problems outside peak hours, that could be easily changed.

Now let's just get on with the experiment and focus on requiring Southwark to communicate more credibly and transparently about the results from its monitoring. The actual impacts will be hard to work out as the background traffic situation is not normal or stable, so you can't simply ascribe impacts to the scheme. A dialogue between supporters, opponents, councillors and council staff is urgently needed to agree some ground rules about how this 'living lab' will work.

Off-peak is definitely important to measure. The most health benefits from active travel (let's not forget either that COVID-19 affects the overweight etc. more) comes from enabling a wider range of people to walk and cycle more, especially those who aren't working. Likewise if we are to make Dulwich Village a place to linger during lockdown, so helping local business, a different balance between driving and space for people is needed daytimes and weekends.

[Spartacus]

Glad to see that our local councillor has his finger on the East Dulwich pulse

Would be nice to see him engage with the people who voted him in over concerns with local issues including the shameful pushing through of the healthy streets agenda by the council rather than what's going on over in Brixton where he's a school teacher.

James I don't see your response to people's concerns around local road closing measures, are you representing us or are you just a yes man to the council ? (I think it's obvious which it is in my mind 😱)

[snowy]

Stop sounding like a childish pedant.

He?s engaged here and there is more going on in the world than some tweaking of a few Southwark streets.

[Spartacus]

Snowy, he has failed to engage with the discussions on the social distancing measures that the council are pushing through. It's not childish, I just want a councillor who works for the people who voted him in. Is that too much to ask ?

[mockingbird]

wulfhound Wrote:

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

> > Experimental Orders do not require consultation

> but to make them permanent after the stated time,

> that DOES require consultation.

>

hi wulfhound

You state that making experimental orders permanent does require consultation after the stated time. Can you advise where the regulations state this?

[wulfhound]

https://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/media/6687/explaination_of_experimental_traffic_orders-36785.pdf

[snowy]

mockingbird Wrote:

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

> wulfhound Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > > Experimental Orders do not require

> consultation

> > but to make them permanent after the stated

> time,

> > that DOES require consultation.

> >

> hi wulfhound

> You state that making experimental orders

> permanent does require consultation after the

> stated time. Can you advise where the regulations

> state this?

From the amendments to the Transport Act related to covid that I?ve previously posted. Technically they need only consult emergency services to make any changes that the government (via Department for Transport)has directed them to do.

[mockingbird]

Thank you Snowy

that is what is stated in the Traffic Mgmt Regs. There is NO process or requirement to consult on experimental orders other the police.

Written objections can be made during the first six months of its operation.

Wulfhound - the item that you point to does not say that a consultation occurs.

snowy Wrote:

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

> mockingbird Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > wulfhound Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > > Experimental Orders do not require

> > consultation

> > > but to make them permanent after the stated

> > time,

> > > that DOES require consultation.

> > >

> > hi wulfhound

> > You state that making experimental orders

> > permanent does require consultation after the

> > stated time. Can you advise where the

> regulations

> > state this?

>

> From the amendments to the Transport Act related

> to covid that I?ve previously posted. Technically

> they need only consult emergency services to make

> any changes that the government (via Department

> for Transport)has directed them to do.

[first mate]

Within the context of traffic management, until today I was oblivious that very large sections of Dog Kennel Hill, are cordoned off reducing all traffic, including bicycles, to one narrow lane either way. Grove Park is once more blocked off meaning that if you come back into ED via Camberwell you are sent on a massive detour all around the houses via Bellenden, where I believe further changes are on the cards?

Once everything else is put in place in terms of the ?emergency? ED road blocks I cannot imagine the traffic chaos that will ensue. I really resent an extra half hour being put on a necessary journey for a long overdue visit to an elderly parent out of London, because of Southwark?s badly managed schemes.

Does anyone know how long the extremely extensive road works on DKH and Grove Park (yet again) are for and how long they will take? Is this necessary work or being done for social distancing? Where do buses go?

In regard to our Councillor, I understand he may have different priorities right now but the residents of ED badly need someone who has time and energy to represent us...that is what the role requires. I am sure individuals know this when they stand for office and also have a sense of the demographic they are elected to represent. It does seem that our man is not that interested in the concerns of many of the residents of ?leafy dulwich?.

[sally buying]

Work is already taking place on Bellenden. No notification at all but then why would we be told by the Cllr who remains out of sight.

No doubt these works are the ones people fought against but are now being done under covid19.

There was was in depth discussions on Bellenden even to the extent of using Dutch consultants which no body agreed with. So perfect chance to bang it in under some emergency rule.

All under hand. Are we surprised, no if they can spend ?25,000.00+ on the Avondale Rise/Bellenden corner which was not required as it was already there but not enforced but as the instigators said it will look pretty when we have finished.

Very soon you will not recognise the area as the very small but vocal mob will get their way without anyone knowing.

[Bicknell]

The problem is ( somebody said this way back)- that no one trusts what the council is saying . YOu can't rely on them to come up with something thats for the general good when they use figures you cant rely on. Just because the councillors shout it really loud doesn't mean its fact. Its just opinion.

[Spartacus]

This morning on the 9am BBC news, Liverpool council are talking about how they will suspend parking bays around restaurants to allow people to sit out side and stay safe whilst eating.

This strikes me as what the corona virus emergency funds and powers were given to local authorities for and not to close streets to traffic to suit the authorities own anti car agenda.

Can we replace southwark council with the team from Liverpool please ?

[exdulwicher]

This strikes me as what the corona virus emergency funds and powers were given to local authorities for and not to close streets to traffic to suit the authorities own anti car agenda.

Within reason (and depending a bit on the layout of the streets, the type of shopping (retail, leisure, restaurants etc), one sort of leads to the other. Remove on-street parking and a lot of the traffic disappears (they were driving down that street specifically to park on it).

This does depend a lot on the street in question (LL for example has a mix of through traffic, buses and people wanting short-term kerbside parking to nip into a shop).

Manchester have done it with parts of Deansgate too - there's long been a campaign to close that road as it's very polluted, very congested and actually there are other more appropriate roads to get around / through the city centre but part of their lockdown funding went into closing sections of it with big planters to allow the cafes and restaurants to spill out into the road while also allowing pedestrians to move up and down.

[slarti b]

It is interesting to see how the results of the OHS phase 3 consultation are being presented by the councillors.

Initially being boasted of as the largest Southwark consultation ever, then when queried about location of respondents they claimed that the "vast majority" came from close to the junction (though they said it would take too much time to analyse properly)and were 55% in favoiur of junction closure. This alleged result was used to support the DV closure

It now seems that, of the 2,000 respondents (I think online), only about 1,200 came from the Consultation Area but the councillors will still not provide the breakdown of those within the area supporting or opposing the closure of DV junction. Nevertheless they claim the unpublished results as justification for local support to go ahead with the scheme.

Other unanswered questions include,

- Was the Western side of the Dutch Estate included in the Consultation, they are not in areas A, B or C on the OHS slides.

- Were children encouraged to respond to the conultation ? I have heard this anecdotally though I have not had confirmation.

- Did the release of interim results to the Councillors and local pressure groups affect the final results?

- Are Dulwich Village and College Road part of the Consultation Area, they are in Area C according to the maps (and common sense) but the Councillors think not.

- When will the council analyse the written responses, presumably more likely to be from those in the Consultation area.

- If the majority of adult responses in the consultation area oppose the closure, will the Councillors reverse their position?

Lets see...

[wulfhound]

Why would adults' responses count for more than childrens'? At least those old enough to read and write. Putting down a me-too response in your 3yr old's name doesn't strike me as fair play.

Excluding people on grounds of age seems like a slippery slope to all sorts of unpleasantness.

- Ignore all responses by over-75s because they won't be around to live with the consequences of climate change?

- Give extra weight to those with ?50k and above salaries because they contribute more in tax & their time is more valuable?

Nope, I didn't think so.

[slarti b]

Would you apply the same criteria to voting if they are old enough to read and write, ie about 5?

What about undue influence, if a councillor comes to your school and is presented by your teachers to talk about this wonderful scheme that they should support, where is the balanced viewpoint?

Will children be able to understand and balance issues such as the impact of potential traffic diversion (though to be fair the council and councillors struggle on this)

Will they be taken in by emotive, misleading statements such as traffic increasing by 47% ?

Nope I don't think so

Edited to ask : Are you aware of children being encouraged to respond to the consultation by parents, teachers or campaign groups?

[wulfhound]

Would you apply the same criteria to voting if they are old enough to read and write, ie about 5?

No - and I don't think a 5 year old could comprehend something like the OHS programme. An 8 or 9 year old? Maybe. At least to the limited extent of how it relates to their day to day lives. Which is as much as most of us do, if we're honest.

I'm a firm supporter of 16 year olds being be able to vote in elections - they pay tax, they can get married, etc.. Are they a picture of cognitive perfection? Heavens no, but one could point to counter-examples at any age. And they'll be around to live with the consequences a lot longer than the rest of us.

What about undue influence, if a councillor comes to your school and is presented by your teachers to talk about this wonderful scheme that they should support, where is the balanced viewpoint?

That rather depends on whether or not the teachers support it. I'd say they're equally capable of stirring up the PTA's towards an anti response - especially those schools with large catchments and hordes of well-connected parents arriving by car every morning.

Will children be able to understand and balance issues such as the impact of potential traffic diversion (though to be fair the council and councillors struggle on this)

I don't think _any_ of us, for or against, knows what the outcome will be. Even most of the proponents will have a price that they're unwilling to pay, a set of circumstances that makes the scheme unjustifiable. I'm sure that the council and councillors do. Equally, any rational opponent should, I hope, have a that's-not-so-bad-after-all scenario in mind. (There will be some who just don't like change, or don't agree with the message that change is needed, but I think that's a minority)

Edited to ask : Are you aware of children being encouraged to respond to the consultation by parents, teachers or campaign groups?

Personally no, but I don't live that close to this one. I wouldn't be surprised if both camps try to play the numbers game - although honestly I think turning consultations in to a popularity contest as seems to have happened in the last few years is a rather silly distraction from the actual aims of the consultation process (which is supposed to be, to discover and, if necessary mitigate, hardships and disbenefits caused by a scheme). "52:48 YOU LOST GET OVARR IT HA HA" doesn't really do anyone any favours.