LTN Discussion

[ab29]

Despicable

https://southwarknews.co.uk/news/transport/elderly-and-disabled-left-isolated-by-the-dulwich-village-junction-write-letter-to-council-leader/

[legalalien]

Here’s a new list of minor traffic schemes (double yellow lines, pavement adjustments etc)

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50030016

Some of them are local. Notably an extension to the pavement build out outside Goodrich School.

[CPR Dave]

Looks like there will be about 15 metres of new double yellows at the juntion of Calton and Townley too.

That will ease congestion in the area at school pick up time.

[Penguin68]

  Quote

That will ease congestion in the area at school pick up time.

No it won't, it will transfer congestion, just away from the school. What it will do is to make pedestrian etc. activity at the school gates marginally safer - which is a good thing, of course.

[ab29]

All of this is pure Monty Python.

The trains are very expensive and getting more so every year, they are completely unreliable, the infrastructure is old and has not been upgraded in years. Private train companies only care about profits and paying their shareholders.

The bus routes are changed for the worst, cut or scrapped altogether.

Number of people cycling is minuscule and yet big chunks of roads have been turned into cycling lanes which are empty 90% of time.

Nothing has been done for pedestrians, well, apart from ebikes and escooters scattered around on pavements, making walking even more difficult.

And LTN, mostly applied to wealthy / better off streets, forcing the congestion to the neighbouring roads and choking its residents.

How on earth all of this is going to make anything better?

Edited December 22, 2022 by ab29

[ab29]

The money is wasted on vanity projects like LTN in East Dulwich, to keep already quiet and wealthy roads like Court Lane traffic free, so the residents there can feel like they live in a village (how lovely) and yet there is not enough money to keep the community centers going.

https://southwarknews.co.uk/news/community/driving-hope-for-christmas-bermondsey-day-centre-needs-a-minibus-or-faces-closure/?fbclid=IwAR2AF2-04jRHgbXWBCxQL09vHZQDFctFZ7EVTgA1AkeW_PMOaxVKwBNZ9aw

[CPR Dave]

The money they squandered here could have paid for that van.

https://southwarknews.co.uk/featured/whats-happened-to-the-reopen-peckham-lido-campaign/

What kind of people are these throwing away tax payers money on stupid white elephants like this FFS?

[Rockets]

Clean Air Dulwich making another run on the tone-deaf award of the year. Lordship Lane businesses have been massively impacted by the LTNs (that CAD lobbied for) and now they want to turn what's left of free parking for the shops into bus lanes....

Someone ought to remind them that it was the LTNs that they so love are what is the major cause of public transport delays throughout the capital.....

Not sure what planet this group lives on but it is certainly not one that is supportive of the fragile Lordship Lane shop ecosystem ...perhaps they want to see more Joe the Juices replacing independent shops that thrive on the Lane being a destination shopping location...

[Bic Basher]

Buses would be able to operate a lot better if the 20mph zones were scrapped. TfL still haven't introduced a 20mph speed limit on the streets they operate in Southwark such as Peckham Road and the Old Kent Road.

[DuncanW]

Have they indicated they intend to?

Those roads are mainly Red Routes which means they stay at 30mph I thought.

[malumbu]

Pleased that so many boroughs have adopted 20 mph, shame it isn't universal on all metropolitan roads (excepting trunk or whatever they are called). There are better things that you can do to improve bus times. Interestingly since the reopening of Rye lane car less double line parking, that used to infuriate me due to the impact on buses.

[Rockets]

In a recent article on whether the council were prioritising gritting for some road users over others Cllr Rose said:

“Regrettably after more than a decade of cuts to council funding we’re unable to grit as many roads and pavements as we'd like to, but we do provide salt bins so residents can clear their own streets.”

Does anyone know, where the funding for gritting comes from because I would have presumed it was from the council's roads budget which is being massively topped up by the LTN fine revenue?

[legalalien]

I’d say from this doct that it’s out of the highways budget. I found it when trying to find out where my nearest salt bin might be - it’s everything you need to know about Southwark’s gritting programme!

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/148788/Winter-Service-Policy-and-Plan-2022-23.pdf

[Rockets]

Ah and that is the budget that is swelled by the LTN fine bonanza I presume?

[ab29]

Yeah, because mother cannot be disabled

https://southwarknews.co.uk/news/transport/dulwich-village-ltn-southwark-council-hits-back-at-blue-badge-holders/?fbclid=IwAR1sWGi-shPAw-FQC_Ljlso-IU6Y4Sh-AEP3mcczXAusX68fEBS5mg-r_8c

[first mate]

It is really difficult to get a Blue Badge these days. You have to be very disabled to qualify and to get one.

If the council has really said this then I think it has to be a potential breach of the rights of disabled to equal access. To say the rights of mothers and children trump those of the disabled is not right, not in my view anyhow.

[CPR Dave]

To say that mothers are in need of special access more than say fathers, or non binary parents, woukd be is also incredibly insulting and discriminatory against women who have had children.

[legalalien]

To be fair, although the article refers to mothers and kids, the actual quote from the council letter refers to children but not mothers or parents specifically, so it may be a clumsy summary by Southwark News — hard to tell. (The letter does refer to “pushchairs” as users in addition to children which made me smile).

Logically, there are either lots and lots of blue badge holders (enough to pose a major risk to other users- if there are that many then their needs should be taken into account more) or very few - in which case they’d hardly pose a major threat, particularly if they were careful - and I’d hazard a guess they’d be more careful than some of the cyclists currently whizzing through.

Although this misses the bigger issue, surely the point about having protected characteristics is to protect minority interests- so it shouldn’t just be a numbers game?

What about allowing blue badge holders through except during the term time school run rush hours?

[first mate]

Good points LA.

I guess the central headache is how physically to disbar most cars while letting some through. Camera control seems the only real option.

But the headache is of Southwark Council's own making and they need to find a solution that is fair and transparent.

[exdulwicher]

  first mate said:

If the council has really said this then I think it has to be a potential breach of the rights of disabled to equal access.

 

That's not what the Equality Act 2010 says - nowhere is it specified that Blue Badge holders should have unfettered access to drive anywhere and everywhere. As an aside, BB holders are already exempt from the Dulwich Village restriction northbound and the Calton/Townley timed restriction.

The document that councils refer to is this one:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1044542/inclusive-mobility-a-guide-to-best-practice-on-access-to-pedestrian-and-transport-infrastructure.pdf

It's quite long and involved but it references the EA many times, not just for disabled people but for all groups and it identifies (correctly) that if you make an environment more accessible and welcoming for (eg) disabled people then it's usually more accessible and welcoming for everyone.

"Dulwich Square" (or whatever it's called this week) has moved on from being LTN-based to being a "Placemaking" project:

https://www.pps.org/article/what-is-placemaking

Hence the seating, the activities, the cafe space and so on. You can call it by a variety of different things but it's not dissimilar to what was done (on a bigger scale) at Trafalgar Square when the northern side of traffic was removed to create a public realm area rather than a massive traffic island. Same at Herne Hill (the pedestrianised bit in front of the station was done in 2010 under a Regeneration scheme rather than a traffic control scheme but it had the same outcome).

That's the idea at DS. Somewhere buried in the archives of the original (pre-Covid) traffic plans was a similar idea up at the Eynella / LL junction with the library as the main backdrop for a "public square" type area.

Having vehicles driving through the middle of that is not helpful to anyone - especially disabled but actually also to everyone else using that space too. The more exemptions you put in, the more complex and expensive it is to manage and monitor and the more difficult it is to understand for drivers. It's far easier for ALL if there is a blanket block on the whole thing, that way it can't be misunderstood. And the council can't be accused of "raking it in" from fines.

It's not unique - every pedestrian high street in the country operates in a similar way.

[first mate]

But access has very recently been removed, primarily to enhance access for cyclists and other able bodied groups, but disadvantaging a number who are disabled and rely on car use to live and have some equality of access, that is not the same thing as demanding 'unfettered access'.

I am also interested to know how genuinely wheelchair friendly this area is, given the tables and chairs and certain cyclists whizzing through and unwilling to dismount as they are wearing cycling shoes.

I am not convinced and to compare this to an enormous space in central London does not help.

[alice]

Herne Hill station and the Trafalgar Square examples are completely different. They already have fantastic public transport alternatives. The Dulwich Junction definitely does not. It has gone wrong. But no one has the guts to say so.

[exdulwicher]

  Quote

Herne Hill station and the Trafalgar Square examples are completely different. They already have fantastic public transport alternatives. The Dulwich Junction definitely does not. It has gone wrong. But no one has the guts to say so.

 

That's a bit of a bait and switch manoeuvre. The conversation was about letting Blue Badge holders - by definition private cars - pass through the junction. I was using HH and Trafalgar as example of public realm projects.

 

  first mate said:

But access has very recently been removed, primarily to enhance access for cyclists and other able bodied groups, but disadvantaging a number who are disabled and rely on car use to live and have some equality of access, that is not the same thing as demanding 'unfettered access'.

 

Since the junction itself never had any parking within it and was solely a through road between Court Lane / Calton Avene and the road through the village, you could easily argue that there's no loss of access at all since you can still park on Calton, on Court Lane or in the parking bays at the front of the parade of shops, at least one of which is specifically reserved for disabled and enjoy the same access via wheelchair or whatever mobility aid is used. The "square" itself is now easier to negotiate (for everyone, not just disabled) because it's not got any traffic going through it.

As is the case with the area in front of HH, access is easier and safer for all because of the lack of traffic.

[legalalien]

I'm not sure that saying "sorry, we've decided this is now a placemaking project so we're going to ignore the outstanding equality issues from the earlier phase" is a very convincing argument, if that's what's going on.

I don't think "access" in this context was intended to mean access to the (remaining) local shops so much as access to the local area more generally (doctor, route to hospital, visiting friends etc.)?

Anyway - can't remember if I've posted it already, but here's a link to the current consultation on Southwark's Sustainable Transport Strategy which I believe is the successor to the "Movement Plan", the source of all the policy justifications in the specific decisions that the council makes. It closes 6 Feb so if you have thoughts, by all means send them in:

https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/sustainable-transport-strategy-draft-consultation/.

Worth reading the EqIA assessment attached to the draft. The point about expanding vehicle-free space notes that "Expansions of vehicle-free

space will not affect the

accessibility of locations by

car. Where people still do

need to use a car to reach

their destination, they will still

be able to do so."

Which brings us back to the original argument about whether giving the option to drive the long way around, has the substantive effect of enabling blue badge holders to use a car to reach their destination, or not....

[first mate]

Thanks LA, your interpretation is correct.

In the same way, I suspect the majority of cyclists (especially those who do not want to dismount because of the alleged difficulty of walking in cycling shoes) are using this as a through route to get from one destination to another as easily and quickly as possible. The access to that route has been enhanced for them but removed for Blue Badge holders.

I note that EDV mentions pedestrianisation and, as discussed elsewhere, will all able bodied cyclists therefore be expected to dismount and walk through the pedestrianised bit, whether they want to or not?