Surely it is a police matter. Schools do not have traffic enforcement powers.
Regarding Healthy Neighbourhood Programmes and larger scale LTN interventions. The order in which each neighbourhood was originally prioritised (pre-COVID) was based on a number of criteria. The criteria related to the changes and benefits that could be expected when areas saw reduced traffic and more people feel able to walk or cycle for all or part of their journey.
Lewisham and Lee Green scored highest out of all 18 Healthy Neighbourhood areas. This was primarily due to it having the highest number of personal injury collisions out of all 18 areas. The delivery of a successful low traffic neighbourhood aims to reduce collisions by reducing the number of vehicles using residential streets. In addition, based on TfLâs Strategic Cycling Analysis, this area has a high potential for journeys to be switched to cycling. It also had relatively high levels of feedback from residents who had concerns around road safety and traffic volumes.
I hope this puts to rest some of the ideas circulating that Lewisham & Lee Green area was chosen to benefit Labour members or whatever new arbitrary reason springs to peopleâs mind from day-to-day.
Similarly, Cllr Best had nothing to do with the location of the Silverdale/Bishopshorpe filter, and her only involvement has been to pass on concerns raised by residents. The rumours chucked around on this forum that the Silverdade filter was chosen to benefit one councillor who lives near the road was, as it would have seemed to most casual observers anyway, completely baseless.
The locations for the temporary modal filters were identified drawing on a number of sources. They are located in areas where through-traffic has previously been identified as an issue, and where it was feared higher volumes of traffic were likely to re-emerge as lockdown restrictions were eased. This assessment was based on a number of factors, including traffic data, resident complaints, and/or officer observations. The footways in the vicinity of these locations are also less than three metres wide, making it more difficult for pedestrians to socially distance. Other strategic factors, such as the proposed cycle network identified in the 2018 Lewisham Cycling Strategy, were also taken into consideration. It should be noted that the initial tranche of âfiltersâ were not intended to stop every rat-run, but focus on some of the key routes.
Bishopsthorpe Road was one of the areas where through-traffic was identified as an issue whilst Silverdale Road is part of the proposed Sydenham to Forest Hill cycleway. A reduction of traffic flows on these streets would improve cyclist safety and encourage more cyclists to use this route.
I have asked officers to supply me with the hard data that can be shared publicly that was used to prioritise the Lewisham & Lee Green LTN and I am sure @DevonishForester you will look forward to crunching the numbers.
Unfortunately, such varied data-driven analysis was not undertaken by myself and Cllr Davis when he formed our working groups through the Local Assembly. As I explained, these were rather more informal groups which we chose to form ourselves to help us tackle casework matters that we saw in the ward. I think most people realise that these groups were set up in good faith to try and solve longstanding traffic-caused casework issues, rather than an attempt at politically motivated electioneering.
I am unsure as to why you were not contacted about the schedule for the Assembly steering meetings. We have a new officer leading the Assembly programme atm. And though Assemblies are paused, if you send me an email I can ask the officer to ensure that if you are a member of the Steering Committee you are kept informed of all future meetings.
I will probably be wrong!.. But I hope this post just lowers the temperature around the LTN and the Silverdale model filter. Like the School Streets, all these are temporary measures (which will be reviewed) and if do want them to be made permanent, they will need to go through a statutory consultation process.
Now⌠onto the School StreetsâŚ
4 Likes
To answer your three questionsâŚ
- Yes they can leave the School Street. If I think cars can leave the School Street as the cameras only enforce unregistered vehicles entering the zone - but in the case of Thorpewood Avenue, cars will only be able exit eastbound anyway and will go through a chicane that is not camera enforced.
Which brings me nicely onto question 2.
- This will be 24/7 measure. The reasoning is two-fold. Firstly, we only have the funds for 1 set of ANPR cameras - therefore, the scheme could only happen if the School Street was one way, with the other entrance to the zone becoming a straightforward âNo Entryâ point (with the classic red no entry sign). Secondly, Thorpewood Avenue is a known ârat-runâ and it was felt that by making half of the street one way, you effectively half the level of cut-through traffic on it. It is felt that this compromise, while not perfect, could have an overall very beneficial impact on the street.
Finally, for those who will say, whatâs changed? 12 months ago Thorpewood Avenue was a âstrategic routeâ but now we can make it one way. I share your frustration. I was frustrated when I first pushed for a School Street on TA and officers were lukewarm to any intervention, claiming this was a strategic route. Personally, I think Covid-19 has changed things. Weâve woken up at need to do more to disincentivise short-distance car journeys. And also, weâve been provided with funds (from central gov) to actually get some of this work done, and that in itself has changed minds and perspectives on what can be achieved right here and right now.
On knocking the congestion âdown the roadâ, yes this is a concern. We hope we will see less congestion as parents start taking the children to Eliot Bank by other means now they cannot get right to the school gate. However, if the scheme fails to achieve this goal and causes big issues for those at the Lower End of TA or on Kirkdale, we are very much open to reviewing.
Unfortunately, my idea for a camera at the bottom of Thorpewood Avenue and one at the top, as well as a gate at Derby Hill, is unlikely to have legs - not only do we not have enough money for two sets of cameras. It is time-consuming and therefore costly in man-hours for officers to administrate exemption lists (ie those registered vehicles that may enter the zone) and the larger the School Street area, the more costly this administration is. It remains an option, but a difficult one to deliver.
- Yes. So residents at the lower/eastern section of Thorpewood Avenue would not be able to drive through the School Street zone eastbound, for those two hours of the day Mon-Fri.
2 Likes
Shame there is not the money for 3 cameras, as this would have been ideal for both schools and the residents of Thorpewood and Derby Hill Crescent. Just a thought. Wouldnât it be of benefit to allow cars registered at the bottom end of Thorpewood to drive through the school street zone?
We have never expected the school to enforce the traffic problems. We just thought that if we could engage with the school community there could be some discussion as to what could be done, weâve even offered to talk to the governors. For example, maybe the parent governors and the PTA could have a team of volunteers at school drop off and pick up time who could remind other parents about safe/legal parking. Pre covid we also suggested that maybe an assembly could focus on walking to school and also have a Dadâs breakfast with a topic of walking to school. For some reason though the school donât seem to want to engage with their neighbours.
From day one, Eliot Bankâs leadership has been clear that they do not feel that it is their teacherâs duty to patrol the street and act as traffic enforcement. To me, this is perfectly understandable.
Iâve heard multiple stories of abuse and confrontation between residents and parents. Knowing how these situations flare-up, I would not expect parent governors to put themselves in this situation either. Unfortunately, residents near the school have had to live with this. This is, after all, one of the issues we are trying to tackle.
The school are aware that a small number of parents can get aggressive and act inappropriately outside the school gates. However, for lots of reasons, it is difficult for the school to tackle this effectively themselves.
Eliot Bank have engaged very proactively with Lewisham Council and have produced a detailed Travel Plan, showing their attempts to change parentâs travel behaviour.
On the other hand, Holy Trinity have not raised any concerns with Lewisham Council regarding problem congestion near the school (so I am told by officers) nor have they produced the required level of Traffic Plan, to be deemed a priority for a School Street.
This would be a very large expansion of officerâs workload, as they would need to administer a much larger list of exemptions - solely to allow residents to drive from Kirkdale to their homes, for 2 hours a day, 5 days a week (the rest of the time they will be fine to do so). For 2 hours a day Monday to Friday, they will need to enter their street from Dartmouth Rd. In the grand-scheme of things, I do not think it is a large burden.
Thanks Leo.
In short the top of Thorpewood will be one way 24/7.
It seems a very material fact which was questioned 11 days ago on the fourth line in the initial post of this thread. The local residents including @robin.orton interpreted it as being 2 hours 5 days a week. The letter from the council could be said to have omitted this key fact by making it so vague and ambiguous. It would be more honest if you resent the letter including this pertinent fact.
Do you really believe that gating the top of Thorpewood will not make parking and congestion worse for the streets below the barrier mainly Radlet, Featherstone and Derby Hill Crescent? The overflow on the top will now be closed for the benefit of 50 households.
I think this one way scheme is targeted at the wrong place. The most congested bottleneck is the Darmouth Road entrance, people use the top as a way to avoid this bottleneck rather than a rat-run. Now people have to use this bottleneck both entering and exiting. This decision doesnât seem to be in any way data driven, just in response to who shouts loudest.
50 households are positively affected by this with over 200 or more negatively affected. Over a thousand children will be negatively affected. The excuse you give is you wanted it to be bigger but due to no money, you are making it smaller so it makes it worse for the majority but ticks a box showing you have done something. I think you need to rethink it. As it stands it will give limited benefit but at a cost to many and not represent good value in spending council money.
Do the majority of residents who will be adversely affected by this scheme have any right to object or at least be consulted to make this scheme less bad for them?
Is it just a case that it will be imposed and residents will just have to put up with it?
On a give me a solution note. I think many residents would prefer to see any one way scheme extended to the full road rather than have extra pollution, parking and congestion. It canât be that expensive and would show that you are considering all the residents not just a few.
I agree that the letter distributed to residents should have been clearer.
Again, I reject the characterisation that this scheme is providing âwinnersâ and âlosersâ. If the trial works, you will see a drop off in the numberâs of parents driving to Eliot Bank and therefore benefitting the entire Thorpewood Avenue and the surrounding streets - Iâve repeated this point numerous times.
The one way system does not need to be cover the entire Thorpewood Avenue to prevent westward cut-through traffic. But we are open to amending the scheme, for example, by moving the no entry sign, if we feel things are not working as they should.
You are claiming this and that without giving the scheme any time to bed in. Once youâve had time to assess the School Streetâs actual impact, please email traffic@lewisham.gov.uk with your feedback.
First of all Leo, I think you are doing a great job in championing school streets. This just doesnât have the balance right and it is not just a school street, it is also putting in a one way system on half the street.
Most (not all) road transport schemes provide winners and losers.
Most will reject your opinion that this scheme will not have winners and losers.
I think most residents just want any scheme to have more winners than losers. The ratio here is wrong.
I half agree with your comment but it is probably more accurate to say âThe one way system will prevent westward cut-through traffic on the top section but increase westward traffic on the bottom sectionâ.
In response to the question above, I will take you answer as No. The residents have no right to be consulted. They should put up with it and then complain with the burden of proof on them to have it changed. Most residents will ask themselves a simple question, if you donât listen to us now, why will you listen to us afterwards?
Unfortunately this thread is descending into opinion rather than fact and I think that is what is sorely missing in this scheme, any data driven analysis of what this scheme will mean for the most congested/polluted/parked on parts of this area.
2 Likes
Hi all,
Sorry for the delay in responding to this thread. I just thought Iâd add to what Leo has been saying, and try and address some of the questions addressed to me.
Firstly, on the context - I know people are aware of this but itâs worth re-iterating. One of the main aims of this (other than the safety of children, and social distancing during COVID) is to tackle carbon emissions in our borough. Data we have (https://lewisham.gov.uk/myservices/environment/making-the-borough-carbon-neutral-by-2030-climate-emergency-declaration) indicates that transport related emissions are a large part of the problem; this suggests that we will not be able to significantly reduce emissions without reducing car usage. We know that some people need their cars and that many journeys need to be made by car - the idea isnât to stop people from using their cars altogether. But we also know that a number of car journeys are short ones that could be walked, or biked instead - and this what the various schemes are trying to encourage.
On this scheme (and school streets generally): locations for the schemes were chosen (by officers) based on a number of criteria, including local data and feedback from schools, practical considerations (e.g. width of pavement; whether the school is on a bus route etc) and how engaged the schools are (because the scheme would be very difficult to implement if the school isnât bought in). We currently donât have the funding /resources to implement school streets everywhere at once, so officers have had to prioritise based on the above criteria (resources were already limited after 10 years of cuts, and COVID has made the situation worse).
I appreciate & understand the concerns that this may result in traffic being displaced elsewhere. Two points on this: (1) as mentioned above, part of the idea is to reduce traffic generally (in this case because parents would walk their kids to schools, instead of driving), which would benefit everyone and (2) this is something we will be monitoring (in part via your feedback, as well as school and officer observations); as Leo says, if we do see displacement instead, we will want to review it. But we need to give this time, as these types of behaviours take time to change/ become embedded (people might start by parking in nearby streets, before deciding that itâs not worth it, and walking instead).
I wanted to re-iterate that this is a trial. Officers (with our support) will be monitoring the impact and listening to feedback from parents, the school and local residents. Leo & I are sharing the comments posted here (we had a call with officers earlier this week) & you can also email us & the traffic team for more specific questions/ feedback. Weâre keen to get this right and want to work together with the community to do so. These behaviours are really hard to shift (Iâm a parent myself and know how busy the day gets!) but I think itâs important that we try.
Finally, on the Tewkesbury traffic working group - yes, I set up a working group with local residents to try and address rat running in and around the Tewkesbury estate/ Honor Oak road/ Devonshire. This was prompted by complaints from local residents, and a continuation of work done by previous councillors. We chose to delineate the area this way as it matches a âcellâ for the purposes of the Healthy Neighbourhoods scheme. We had a number of meetings with residents but the work has been slightly paused as a result of COVID and the resulting changes in funding/ priorities. Nonetheless, Iâm keen to pick it up so if youâre interested, please email me at cllr_sophie.davis@lewisham.gov.uk
Sophie
4 Likes
Indeed. I think the idea that the schools themselves should enforce the schools streets is dangerous. It potentially pits school staff against both parents and residents. School staff maybe great at many things, but not necessarily acting as traffic enforcement and all that entails - as you say.
My comment may seem redundant in agreeing with you @LeoGibbons, but the council website does not share our opinion, so I thought it maybe worth mentioning.
Emphasis mine in the above.
I think a staff member locking a gate 45 minutes before school starts, is far less confrontational/dangerous than teachers patrolling and reprimanding parents at drop-offs, in my opinionâŚ
The same page also says the school will be custodians of the keys should residents need emergency access, and that cars parked in a closed road cannot be moved.
I personally can see a lot of potential for flash-points and confrontation there.
CCTV is a much better solution in that respect.
1 Like
Thanks Sophie for this comprehensive reply. It would add clarity if we could see the official selection document/meeting notes and to see the relative weighting given to observations by Lewishamâs Traffic department, immediate local residentsâ concerns and councillorsâ choice.
The council carried out a site visit in summer 2019 to Thorpewood Avenue to investigate School Streets. They did call on a day when year 5 and 6 were absent but at Eliot Bank year 5 and 6 kids can walk to school so it probably wouldnât have made a lot of difference. I know with my kids and their friends, they all wanted their independence to walk without parents when they got it.
Currently because of COVID, only half the pupils enter via Thorpewood Avenue so it is probably reasonable to say it is not as bad now. This update was sent by Councillor Gibbons to about 30 people so I would regard it as being in the public domain as it is the work of a public figure working with a public department and was sent to a general group. It is a long read but probably the key points are the opinion of the three traffic and highways officers from Lewisham.
I accept that we may have visited on a âgood dayâ but the officers were clear in their assessment. Judging from their direct observations and reflecting on the number of complaints they have received from residents about this issue, Thorpewood Avenue/Eliot Bank does not figure as a particularly bad example of school congestion in the borough.
There were no bottlenecks at the school exit and there was clear space on the pavement for children to roam without being pushed onto the road
I think we understand that the number of complaints have gone up but will traffic have increased significantly since then?
SITE VISIT
Before the summer school break, I visited Thorpewood Avenue with three traffic and highways officers to examine the traffic problems at school collection time. We discussed proposals for enforcement and the arguments for and against the implementation of a School Street/SPZ and/or parking controls.
Pressing the issues raised at Thorpewood Avenue has caused Lewisham Council to now look seriously at the implementation of School Pedestrian Zones/School Streets. However, this would be a new initiative for the Council and one it would want to start with carefully and cautiously. There are a wide range of matters officers need to take account of when considering restricting access to Thorpewood Avenue or any other street. At this stage, there is no guarantee that Thorpewood Avenue would be a priority in a new programme of School Steets, or even be deemed suitable. In the light of the Councilâs budget more than halving since 2010, and the pressing demands on the remaining resources, the Council will have to look innovatively at how it might fund SPZs. However, I will continue to raise Thorpewood Avenue, if and when a programme is put in place. I would also suggest that it is a highly positive move that the Council is considering School Streets.
Measures such as âSchool Streets/SPZsâ are being examined as an intervention to protect pedestrians on streets that can get dangerously clogged at school drops offs. In this context, Officers have pressed that School Streets and other traffic calming programmes outside schools will be implemented in areas that are most in need of it to improve safety and where such schemes will have the greatest positive impact.
During our site meeting we witnessed some double parking and two incidents of parking on school zig-zag lines but overall, we witnessed children able to leave the school in a safe and orderly manner. There were no bottlenecks at the school exit and there was clear space on the pavement for children to roam without being pushed onto the road. Many children were able to cross the road with confidence as the traffic was relatively light and at slow and considerate speed.
I later discovered that Years 5 & 6 were off on the day of our observation. Therefore, I have requested that officers return on another morning to reassess the matter now term time has commenced. Officers have agreed to do visit again later this month.
I accept that we may have visited on a âgood dayâ but the officers were clear in their assessment. Judging from their direct observations and reflecting on the number of complaints they have received from residents about this issue, Thorpewood Avenue/Eliot Bank does not figure as a particularly bad example of school congestion in the borough.
It has been noted by me and officers that the complaints we have received about school hour congestion and parental/driver conduct at Eliot Bank have been from a relatively select group of residents. Understandably, the council needs feedback from a breadth of residents to understand the full extent of the issue. Compared to other roads with schools on in the borough, the council has not received a particularly large amount of individual complaint submissions from Thorpewood Avenue residents.
Broadly speaking, across London our roads are heavily congested and too many individuals are making short journeys by car. Car use for short journeys to and from schools is not sustainable, and the issues faced by residents of Thorpewood Avenue effect hundreds of others across the borough. I and Officers will be encouraging schools in Forest Hill to take up the school travel programme and work with us in encouraging their pupils to walk to school.
I urge resident who continue to be concerned for the safety of pedestrians on Thorpewood Avenue to write to Lewisham Council traffic & highways team if they have not done so, as it is crucial that these concerns are expressed and recorded.
Nope, as Iâve said. Covid-19, as a public health emergency, has made creating space outside our schools a much more pressing matter than it was in summer 2019. This is understood by Lewisham Council and Central Gov and as such, the bar for intervention has been set much lower.
Eliot Bank in 2019 did not figure as a particularly congestion school in hitting the bar for intervention when our funds to intervene were extremely limited and only the most congested streets near schools could be prioritised. However, the school does have its problems with congestion, we know that. We are now in a position to act due to new funding.
I have set out over this thread our motivation behind this scheme - why we are now able to act and implement a school street - why the scheme was designed as it was - and why I feel it will benefit the entire Thorpewood Avenue area.
I feel you have already made your mind up about this scheme without waiting to witness the trial and how it plans out. Therefore, I do not feel it is productive to continue this back and forth.
As a resident at the lower end of Thorpewood Ave I witness regular near misses as cars try to go up & down (easterly & westerly) at the same time. The road is narrower at the Dartmouth Road end & with parking, two cars canât pass each other. At school start & finishing times the sounds of car horns & shouting happens every school day. The reason given by the councillors to make only the top half of Thorpewood Ave easterly only makes no sense if safety is the main concern, then the whole of Thorpewood Ave should one way.
Something that has not been mentioned at all in these posts is the leisure centre parking, which with commuter all day parking is a major problem at the bottom of Thorpewood Ave & why the working group was started over 3years ago. The Eliot Bank school parking problems came in at a later date & has taken over. Forest Hill Pools is due to reopen on 30th November, then the road will be busier & we will be back to more cars trying to park at the Dartmouth Road end over driveways & on double yellow lines. As I understand the plan is to start the road closure & one way system a week later. Thorpewood Ave is used by many not just school traffic, parking & pollution are a problem on the whole road.
2 Likes
Iâm getting confused now. Is the whole of TA going to be one way eastbound or just the top half? And from when?
Just the top half, it will be 24/7 from the beginning of December.
You will never be able to drive up Thorpewood Avenue and exit from Kirkdale again.
The only exit will be from the bottom junction with Dartmouth Road.
2 Likes
It is probably time to wrap up this thread as it is obvious this scheme will go ahead in the name of COVID without the need for consultation.
There has been engagement from our councillors on this forum. It has been educational for our Councillors. This is seen as the Eliot Bank School Street but Leo thought EB had three form entry. This thread corrected that important fact as it is two-form entry.
It has been important for residents in getting clarification and transparency. The council sent a letter to residents that was unclear which most residents misinterpreted. Leo admitted the letter should have been clearer. The material fact was that the top of Thorpewood Avenue would be one way with no exit onto Kirkdale which was cleared up after 11 days on this thread. This obviously means twice the amount of traffic 24/7 exiting via Dartmouth Road which is a known bottleneck.
There has been little evidence of working with the community. There was a Thorpewood Avenue Working Group which met and decided two key things: any scheme should benefit the whole street including all residents and both schools and not just push traffic/congestion around. All residents in neighbouring roads should be consulted about any scheme. The community werenât contacted when the proposal was put forward but it was known in Labour circles. Leo accepted âthe criticism that as soon as I heard that a School Street was being considered for Thorpewood Avenue was in August I should have contacted the TAWGâ. The community were informed 2 months later and given a plan and told just endure all the extra pollution and congestion when it is shifted down the road to you.
The most damning thing about this scheme is the lack of hard evidence in favour of it. The only hard evidence about congestion and pavements/social distancing was from three officers of Lewishamâs Highway and Traffic Department reported by Leo in 2019 who said it wasnât particularly bad compared to the rest of the borough and there were wide pavements. Leo has responded to this that the school does have its problem with congestion but with no proof that it really has got any worse especially now EB has halved the number of children who enter via Thorpewood.
I also feel as a labour voter of 30 years that it fails to honour the simple principles of inclusion and equality by not including Holy Trinity School which is on the same street and will now have to take twice as much pollution as it will be situated beside the only car traffic exit on Thorpewood Avenue.
I am going to end with a poll as I agree with Leo that the discussion is probably no longer productive.
3 Likes