LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Metallic]

Nigello Wrote:

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

> Ruined lives? Such hyperbole serves nobody well.

Probably you have never lived alone, with a chronic disease, waiting for your three or four carers at different times of the day and night, who turn you in bed, lift you and bathe you and toilet you, followed by food and the reverse. These people are paid by the visit and when they are held up in traffic jams to get to their client, they are going to start telling their bosses that they are not willing to lose money (on basic anyway I bet) and will look for other clients.

Now before you use hyperbole as a word again, I can tell you there are many people like that inside what is known as Area B, and probably everywhere else too, but seemingly people wanting to have clean air for everyone forgets that not all of the older population will ever benefit.

[Penguin68]

Attenborough, and the other climate champions, are clear that what we need is not more cycling, but a third fewer people, worldwide. Trump is doing his best towards that, but the idea that these half hearted measures will result in a climate benefit is laughable. All they will do is to make life less comfortable for many, but to no long-term global climate benefit. Fewer cars isn't going to cut it. We need billions of fewer people.

So what all these road closures are really about is an attack (class based) on car ownership and virtue signalling that 'we're the right and thoughtful ones'.

As regards climate change and the forecasts of the 'climate experts' this really isn't worth a hill 'o beans.

But people will be made to suffer a poorer quality of life so that some (often young and fit) middle class socialists can feel better about themselves. Clever middle class home owners who can create an enclave for themselves have capitalised on this - knowing their short-term benefit is just for them, and won't actually help anyone else. But why not, if they can?

[exdulwicher]

slarti b Wrote:

> So you haven't answered my quesions have you, as

> brief reminder,

> 1) Are, DV, Calton, Court Lane Townly Rat runs, yes\no

> 2) which roads do you think the displaced traffic should use, please name them

> 3) Is it right to displace increase congestion and pollution and displace traffic onto the "main" roads - yes\no

>

> Question 2 is particularly important and supporters of these schemes, the councillors,

> posters on here like RaRa and ExDulwicher refuse to answer it. So come on, lets hear which roads

> should suffer increased congestion so we can have weekend concerts in Margy Plaza :-)

I've not answered because here is no one answer to "what roads should be used instead?". It depends on the journey. Start/end points, "ideal" route vs other options, use of sat-nav vs driver just saying "I'll do X instead", purpose of journey (and that is important to differentiate between a delivery driver doing (say) 6 drops in an area vs a parent driving a child to school and then driving back empty). It will vary depending on time of day, purpose of journey and distance of journey. If you're driving 1km then you probably don't have many alternative route options (and frankly, if you're driving 1km, that's the entire purpose of these filters, to stop you doing that!) but if you're driving 20km then you probably have a few more possibilities that don't affect the overall time of the journey.

One of the benefits of doing it this way with temporary measures and then just looking at what actually happens is you don't really need a huge amount of "before" data (some is certainly helpful but it's actually not as critical as some people seem to think), you get to see the results in real time with the expected disruption followed by the smoothing out of the line as people get used to the revised routes / options open to them and you can tweak things a bit as required. It won't all be perfect but it's a lot better than building an entire new junction then coming back and redoing it 2 years later.

I'm not a fan of weekend concerts and other assorted crap in Dulwich Square (or whatever its name is this week) by the way. It's a road and it's still used by pedestrians and cyclists; muppets doing the waltz there get right in the way!

(edited for spelling)

[Rockets]

You know everyone heralds the Netherlands as the beacon of light when it comes to cycling and how they are the model we should all be following and that we put them in the shade as far as car use is concerned. Well, I had no idea that the Netherlands actually has a higher per capita car ownership than the UK - that's not something you would have expected.

[Rockets]

exdulwicher Wrote:

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

> slarti b Wrote:

>

> > So you haven't answered my quesions have you, as

>

> > brief reminder,

> > 1) Are, DV, Calton, Court Lane Townly Rat runs,

> yes\no

> > 2) which roads do you think the displaced

> traffic should use, please name them

> > 3) Is it right to displace increase congestion

> and pollution and displace traffic onto the "main"

> roads - yes\no

> >

> > Question 2 is particularly important and

> supporters of these schemes, the councillors,

> > posters on here like RaRa and ExDulwicher refuse

> to answer it. So come on, lets hear which roads

> > should suffer increased congestion so we can

> have weekend concerts in Margy Plaza :-)

>

> I've not answered because here is no one answer to

> "what roads should be used instead?". It depends

> on the journey. Start/end points, "ideal" route vs

> other options, use of sat-nav vs driver just

> saying "I'll do X instead", purpose of journey

> (and that is important to differentiate between a

> delivery driver doing (say) 6 drops in an area vs

> a parent driving a child to school and then

> driving back empty). It will vary depending on

> time of day, purpose of journey and distance of

> journey. If you're driving 1km then you probably

> don't have many alternative route options (and

> frankly, if you're driving 1km, that's the entire

> purpose of these filters, to stop you doing that!)

> but if you're driving 20km then you probably have

> a few more possibilities that don't affect the

> overall time of the journey.

>

> One of the benefits of doing it this way with

> temporary measures and then just looking at what

> actually happens is you don't really need a huge

> amount of "before" data (some is certainly helpful

> but it's actually not as critical as some people

> seem to think), you get to see the results in real

> time with the expected disruption followed by the

> smoothing out of the line as people get used to

> the revised routes / options open to them and you

> can tweak things a bit as required. It won't all

> be perfect but it's a lot better than building an

> entire new junction then coming back and redoing

> it 2 years later.

>

> I'm not a fan of weekend concerts and other

> assorted crap in Dulwich Square (or whatever its

> name is this week) by the way. It's a road and

> it's still used by pedestrians and cyclists;

> muppets doing the waltz there get right in the

> way!

>

> (edited for spelling)

Ex- given your experience of such things is it at all odd that the council are organising monitoring in September and then December on many of the roads impacted by the displacement and during that period are planning to close more roads that will inevitably lead to a decline in traffic numbers (I refer to East Dulwich Grove in particular given the plans to close Dulwich Village at the roundabout which will send traffic looking for yet more routes)?

And whilst you herald temporary measures can you a council really get a handle on what is happening if four sets of closures have been implemented in a short period of time? Does it not beoome a moving target as the council chases the displacement by throwing an ever increasing number of road closures in place?

Also, the judicial reviews that have been filed in other areas are based on the legal precedent whether these measures are experimental. Do you consider LTN's experimental - it seems that the council referred to them as "emergency" rather than experimental traffic orders which may be something of a deliberate misnomer on their part and could well see them falling foul of the law.

[Spartacus]

Ex

I'm concerned by your statement

" if you're driving 20km then you probably have a few more possibilities that don't affect the overall time of the journey."

Are you saying that people can't drive through our back yard to get to wherever but it's okay as they will find routes through other people's backyards ? All well and good but as councils are putting in LTNs in everyone's back yard, then that 10 mile journey (we still use miles not km in this country) will take 2 or 3 times as long,producing more pollution and possibly a higher accident risk for others as frustration boils up.

That journey may be essential, it may not but we don't know only the driver does.

[exdulwicher]

Rockets: there's a difference between Emergency and Experimental.

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

A lot of what is being used at the moment is Emergency under the new legislation (linked above)

Experimental exist already: S9 of the RTRA1984 although they're not used as frequently as they should be - in terms of cheap traffic control they're very good but a lot of people complain bitterly with the "WE'VE NOT BEEN CONSULTED, IT'S UNDEMOCRATIC!" rant and most councils can't be bothered dealing with the fallout (even though it's something they're legally allowed to do as a democratically elected authority).

[legalalien]

Surely that can?t be right - the guidance linked specifically says that the Covid emergency regs can?t be used to bring forward previously planned works (which I thought many of these were)? Surely the argument in favour of them accepts that they were ?required in any event?? Apologies if I am missing something, only just started looking at all this stuff!

?There may be cases where planned works or schemes are being re-scheduled or brought forward as a result of the pandemic, for example, undertaking utility street works, repairing pot holes, implementing junction or road safety improvements during a time where traffic levels are lower. Bringing forward (or postponing) works that are required in any event is in itself unlikely to meet the test in regulation 18(1). An additional reason over and above timing is likely to be required for the order to fall within the meaning of ?purposes connected to coronavirus?. In these cases, it is likely to be more appropriate to use the existing temporary order procedure.?

[Abe_froeman]

If that's right then we should crowd find some judicial review against these closures too.

[legalalien]

Well. It?s complex and expensive I suspect (challenging powers that be is ever thus). Is anyone in touch with those working on the case in Ealing? If not happy to track them down and give them a call. No need to reinvent the wheel...

[Rockets]

exdulwicher Wrote:

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

> Rockets: there's a difference between Emergency

> and Experimental.

>

> https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/making-

> traffic-regulation-orders-during-coronavirus-covid

> -19/traffic-regulation-orders-guidance-on-the-traf

> fic-orders-procedure-coronavirus

>

> A lot of what is being used at the moment is

> Emergency under the new legislation (linked

> above)

>

> Experimental exist already: S9 of the RTRA1984

> although they're not used as frequently as they

> should be - in terms of cheap traffic control

> they're very good but a lot of people complain

> bitterly with the "WE'VE NOT BEEN CONSULTED, IT'S

> UNDEMOCRATIC!" rant and most councils can't be

> bothered dealing with the fallout (even though

> it's something they're legally allowed to do as a

> democratically elected authority).

I just clicked on the link and one of the first things I saw was this:

Bringing forward (or postponing) works that are required in any event is in itself unlikely to meet the test in regulation 18(1).

And then this:

Works needed to put a coronavirus measure in place. For example, works needed to suspend parking bays, widen the pavement or install the cycle lane.

Surely given the DV closures were planned as OHS then they fall foul of this? Also, throwing planters in isn't adding any of the above is it?

I think all of these closures might fall foul of the law the council thought enbaled them.

[Earl Aelfheah]

What do people think will actually be achieved by allowing cars to fill up side roads as well as main ones? Do they honestly believe that the traffic on main roads won?t just increase to previous levels again within weeks? Is it just a the case that they want every road is dominated with traffic in some strange idea of ?fairness?? How will this help anything?

[legalalien]

Actually it looks as though the orders are experimental orders under section 9

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/3579196. Looks like a mid Dec deadline for objections?

The government guidance is here https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/reallocating-road-space-in-response-to-covid-19-statutory-guidance-for-local-authorities/traffic-management-act-2004-network-management-in-response-to-covid-19.

It does sound as though some of the consultation requirements may not have been met in all cases - but not sure what this means in practical terms.

?Authorities should seek input from stakeholders during the design phase. They should consult with the local chiefs of police and emergency services to ensure access is maintained where needed, for example to roads that are closed to motor traffic. Local businesses, including those temporarily closed, should be consulted to ensure proposals meet their needs when they re-open. Kerbside access should be enabled wherever possible for deliveries and servicing.

The public sector equality duty still applies, and in making any changes to their road networks, authorities must consider the needs of disabled people and those with other protected characteristics. Accessibility requirements apply to temporary measures as they do to permanent ones.?

[Dulwichgirl82]

Rahrah

I?ve a question to ask the pro closure lobby and you seem

To be a strong advocate of this.

If you believe:

1. Traffic on these side roads was terrible before, with high volumes etc

And

2. There is no increase in traffic on the displacement roads since they were closed.

There seems to be a paradox, unless you are saying that all those cars previously using the side roads have disappeared they must have gone somewhere.

Do you think that the closures are enough that all those people have chosen to walk/cycle or not make the journey?

It just doesn?t make sense from a logical point of view.

And no I don?t think all roads should have high traffic in the spirit of fairness, I just done think the affluent should get to send their traffic to the poorer roads to protect themselves.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> What do people think will actually be achieved by

> allowing cars to fill up side roads as well as

> main ones? Do they honestly believe that the

> traffic on main roads won?t just increase to

> previous levels again within weeks? Is it just a

> the case that they want every road is dominated

> with traffic in some strange idea of ?fairness??

> How will this help anything?

[Rockets]

legalalien Wrote:

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

> Actually it looks as though the orders are

> experimental orders under section 9

>

> https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/3579196.

> Looks like a mid Dec deadline for objections?

>

> The government guidance is here

> https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/realloc

> ating-road-space-in-response-to-covid-19-statutory

> -guidance-for-local-authorities/traffic-management

> -act-2004-network-management-in-response-to-covid-

> 19.

>

> It does sound as though some of the consultation

> requirements may not have been met in all cases -

> but not sure what this means in practical terms.

>

> ?Authorities should seek input from stakeholders

> during the design phase. They should consult with

> the local chiefs of police and emergency services

> to ensure access is maintained where needed, for

> example to roads that are closed to motor traffic.

> Local businesses, including those temporarily

> closed, should be consulted to ensure proposals

> meet their needs when they re-open. Kerbside

> access should be enabled wherever possible for

> deliveries and servicing.

>

> The public sector equality duty still applies, and

> in making any changes to their road networks,

> authorities must consider the needs of disabled

> people and those with other protected

> characteristics. Accessibility requirements apply

> to temporary measures as they do to permanent

> ones.?

Ooooh, good catch. Southwark quoted experimental not emergency in their submission - that could become a big problem for them. These are not experimental as they were previously planned under OHS so they have merely used the order to fastrack an existing plan - and that's a big no no. Cllr McAsh also admitted they had not consulted shopkeepers on Melbourne Grove.

[Rockets]

..duplicate post

[legalalien]

I think you can only challenge the legitimacy of experimental orders within 6 weeks though (as opposed to making substantive objections) - think I read that somewhere.

Having fun googling. Interesting to see what the govt told local authorities about applications for funding - basically if you want funding then block roads off ASAP

https://s3.amazonaws.com/lcc_production_bucket/files/13657/original.pdf?1590750305.

[Rockets]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> What do people think will actually be achieved by

> allowing cars to fill up side roads as well as

> main ones? Do they honestly believe that the

> traffic on main roads won?t just increase to

> previous levels again within weeks? Is it just a

> the case that they want every road is dominated

> with traffic in some strange idea of ?fairness??

> How will this help anything?

But rahrahrah you contradict yourself as you advocate closing roads that is, in fact, causing smaller roads to become more congested. I just don't get it and don't understand why you can't see what is actually happening.

It's really time the pro-closure lobby opened their eyes to see what is actually happening since these closures went in. This is Loughborough Junction repeating itself.

[Spartacus]

No support for physical road closures by the emergency services

https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/police-and-ambulance-service-wont-support-hard-road-closures-as-new-road-changes-unveiled/

It's about time the council paused and listened to the concerns of the public, businesses and emergency services

[Rockets]

Spartacus Wrote:

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

> No support for physical road closures by the

> emergency services

> https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/police-and-am

> bulance-service-wont-support-hard-road-closures-as

> -new-road-changes-unveiled/

>

> It's about time the council paused and listened to

> the concerns of the public, businesses and

> emergency services

....this was the downfall of the Loughborough Junction closures.

It is clear the emergency services are acknowledging that these closures are impacting their ability to do their jobs.

Didn't the council plead that they cannot afford cameras? Or are they resistant because it becomes difficult for them to rationally argue against timed closures with cameras?

[legalalien]

Thought for the day from the London Cycling Campaign (under a picture of Calton Avenue in their free guide for local authorities on how to win their constituents over (https://s3.amazonaws.com/lcc_production_bucket/files/13729/original.pdf?

?Increasingly often, those against schemes use localised negative impacts, or even potential negative impacts, to try and derail or delay progress. They say that schemes will worsen pollution or congestion at one or two spots, on one road, or, most emotively, outside a particular school.

It is entirely right that we do not tolerate worsening air quality in school classrooms, or for hospital patients, and it is right to aim to reduce congestion that is one of the causes of pollution. But if a scheme will, or is very likely to, significantly reduce overall motor traffic volumes, and therefore overall pollution levels, even if it also causes isolated negatives, should that derail the scheme?

Those who say yes are doomed to oppose

just about all progressive schemes. The ULEZ expansion, for instance, will likely worsen congestion and pollution outside the currently planned expansion zone. But does that make it a bad idea overall? Every scheme that takes bold

steps to reduce motor traffic has some negative impacts. No scheme is perfect, but opposition to such schemes rarely, if ever, present any better ideas. The result of this opposition, indeed the aim, is to delay schemes by years, to dilute and weaken them, or to see them abandoned entirely.

Instead, if a scheme is likely to, or does, worsen congestion or air pollution, it is crucial to commit in advance to mitigations, to developing and delivering further schemes as needed. The climate crisis alone demands that we move forward fast, fixing issues as we go. So, monitor the impacts of any scheme you build, mitigate any problems, and roll out the next scheme, learning as you go. The alternative is to continue to do nothing, or very little, in the face of growing, catastrophic crises.?

[Rockets]

legalalien Wrote:

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

> Thought for the day from the London Cycling

> Campaign (under a picture of Calton Avenue in

> their free guide for local authorities on how to

> win their constituents over

> (https://s3.amazonaws.com/lcc_production_bucket/fi

> les/13729/original.pdf?

>

> ?Increasingly often, those against schemes use

> localised negative impacts, or even potential

> negative impacts, to try and derail or delay

> progress. They say that schemes will worsen

> pollution or congestion at one or two spots, on

> one road, or, most emotively, outside a particular

> school.

> It is entirely right that we do not tolerate

> worsening air quality in school classrooms, or for

> hospital patients, and it is right to aim to

> reduce congestion that is one of the causes of

> pollution. But if a scheme will, or is very likely

> to, significantly reduce overall motor traffic

> volumes, and therefore overall pollution levels,

> even if it also causes isolated negatives, should

> that derail the scheme?

> Those who say yes are doomed to oppose

> just about all progressive schemes. The ULEZ

> expansion, for instance, will likely worsen

> congestion and pollution outside the currently

> planned expansion zone. But does that make it a

> bad idea overall? Every scheme that takes bold

> steps to reduce motor traffic has some negative

> impacts. No scheme is perfect, but opposition to

> such schemes rarely, if ever, present any better

> ideas. The result of this opposition, indeed the

> aim, is to delay schemes by years, to dilute and

> weaken them, or to see them abandoned entirely.

> Instead, if a scheme is likely to, or does, worsen

> congestion or air pollution, it is crucial to

> commit in advance to mitigations, to developing

> and delivering further schemes as needed. The

> climate crisis alone demands that we move forward

> fast, fixing issues as we go. So, monitor the

> impacts of any scheme you build, mitigate any

> problems, and roll out the next scheme, learning

> as you go. The alternative is to continue to do

> nothing, or very little, in the face of growing,

> catastrophic crises.?

Interesting comment here:

But if a scheme will, or is very likely to, significantly reduce overall motor traffic volumes, and therefore overall pollution levels, even if it also causes isolated negatives, should that derail the scheme?

Can anyone show any scheme which has SIGNIFICANTLY reduced motor volumes? The best even the most pro-scheme lobbyist can show is a maximum of 11%.

[KidKruger]

What that post also misses, is that almost everybody is in favour of traffic reductions and addressing pollution/climate issues.

But what they also are in favour of is a strategic approach which those affected are informed of and included in, rather than instantaneous measures which are ill-thought out, exclusive, and simply turn alternative roads in to rat runs.

Sooo lazy to label anyone who complains about the current problems being caused as trying to prevent progress on pollution/traffic/improvements.

It's not a binary situation save the world/kill the world, people just want things done sensibly.

[Rockets]

KidKruger Wrote:

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

> What that post also misses, is that almost

> everybody is in favour of traffic reductions and

> addressing pollution/climate issues.

> But what they also are in favour of is a strategic

> approach which those affected are informed of and

> included in, rather than instantaneous measures

> which are ill-thought out, exclusive, and simply

> turn alternative roads in to rat runs.

> Sooo lazy to label anyone who complains about the

> current problems being caused as trying to prevent

> progress on pollution/traffic/improvements.

> It's not a binary situation save the world/kill

> the world, people just want things done sensibly.

Spot on. But it is convenient for the pro-closure lobby to label anyone who has an opinion that differs, even slightly, from theirs as some kind of pollution and congestion advocate. How many times have we seen the usual suspects claim people are suggesting no nothing?

[heartblock]

Thanks KidKruger, my thought exactly. I am pro reducing car travel, reducing pollution, I have campaigned in fact for green policy for many of my 55 years on this planet. I have a plant based diet, avoid plastic, recycle and upcycle. Have driven twice in the last 10 years and own a bike that is used often and walk as much as I can. The road closures for roads that in the 30+ years I have lived in East Dulwich have never been as polluted or busy as East Dulwich Grove, which now has an extra school, nurseries, a health centre and is a major road for pedestrians and cyclists. This road can accommodate a cycle lane with a bit of imagination and financial input from Southwark. The current closures are cheap, lazy and represent poor planning. Pedestrians and cyclists now both use a crowded and polluted pathway during the school rush, cars idle and braver cyclists use the right hand lane at high risk. East Dulwich Grove is also a high density residential area, less affluent than the gated communities and with a higher burden of health inequality. Very poor Southwark Council, very poor.