We are trialing a dedicated East Dulwich COVID-19 Area on the forum here - please keep it useful.

Forum Sponsors

Glazer Delmar

http://www.gardenia-gardens.com

http://avakitchens.co.uk

Advertise here

The East Dulwich Forum
The Bishop, The EDT, The Great Exhibition, the Actress or another?
Goto Page: Previous1234Next
Current Page: 2 of 4
messageRe: Melbourne Grove South Barrier
Posted by Dulwichgirl82 June 07, 09:17PM

bels123 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A lot has changed since 2015, our understanding of
> the damaging impact air pollution has on our
> health, climate change to name a few. During
> lockdown there has been a big increase in cycling
> which should be encouraged, less cars on the road
> and all that. Residential roads like Melbourne are
> an obvious choice to be a safe cycle route
> alternative to Lordship Lane. Will make a big
> positive difference to pedestrian safety crossing
> Melbourne Grove/East Dulwich Grove junction too.

But worsen pedestrian safety at Matham grove/East dulwich grove junction (where there is a nursery and hence lots of young children crossing), Lordship lane/east dulwich grove and lordship lane/matham grove junction which are both important pedestrian routes as on the lane and the routes to schools.
Reducing traffic and pollution on residential roads is a concern for many roads in east dulwich but this proposal only helps the one road and likely worsens it on others. If there are to be road closures they need to be done in a sensible, area wide manner taking into account of the likely displacement of traffic to other roads, not just the protection of one road at the expense of others.

messageRe: Melbourne Grove South Barrier
Posted by bels123 June 07, 09:31PM

Totally agree those junctions are awful. I was pleased to hear the council mention it’s going to look at improving safety on Lordship Lane for pedestrians at a OHS Dulwich consultation meeting pre lockdown.

messageRe: Melbourne Grove South Barrier
Posted by first mate June 07, 09:43PM

Why a road block on MG and not a permeable filter?

messageRe: Melbourne Grove South Barrier
Posted by bels123 June 07, 10:01PM

Looking at the plans it is a permeable filter.

messageRe: Melbourne Grove South Barrier
Posted by ruffers June 07, 10:03PM

sally buying Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why are people so mean on this forum
> Answers on Zoopla please.

Loving your work

messageRe: Melbourne Grove South Barrier
Posted by Serena2012 June 07, 10:05PM

Bels - conscious that the barrier will be permeable to bikes and pedestrians, but unless I’m mistaken what is being proposed here is a physical barrier which means that no motor vehicles can pass. A barrier creates all sorts of problems that a camera based filter or indeed a moveable barrier, allowing Emergency service vehicles; deliveries; residents to drive through would not. Ultimately, the burden borne by the surrounding streets will be disproportionate; and in circumstances where the relevant sections of Lordship Lane or East Dulwich Grove are closed for whatever reason, traffic will literally have nowhere to go as a route that is secondary to Lordship Lane and accordingly plays a crucial role during diversions will be completely inaccessible.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit was june 07, 10:24pm by Serena2012.

messageRe: Melbourne Grove South Barrier
Posted by first mate June 07, 10:21PM

Bels123 it is a road block, no vehicles can pass through.

messageRe: Melbourne Grove South Barrier
Posted by goldilocks June 07, 10:22PM

When were camera filters suggested please?

During the OHS consultation it was certainly the case that a 'permeable filter' was suggested - and what is being put in place is just that - the permeability comes from the fact that it lets some traffic through and not other sorts - in this case - pedestrians and cyclists can pass through the filters, motorised vehicles cannot.

In any event, the COVID measures being put in on a temporary basis need to be quick to implement and cheap, so ANPR filters are not going to be feasible right now. I think its been mentioned upthread too, but the majority of the traffic driving up Melbourne as a cut through is unlikely to be anything to do with residents in that area, so having a camera for resident access wouldn't seem to be likely to make a huge difference?

messageRe: Melbourne Grove South Barrier
Posted by first mate June 07, 10:45PM

I think the general understanding of a permeable filter is rather different.

Aside from everything else stated, emergency service access is a real worry, has this been properly considered, given we are living through a pandemic with a likely second wave and all that?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was june 07, 10:46pm by first mate.

messageRe: Melbourne Grove South Barrier
Posted by EDAus June 07, 10:47PM

Creating a safe cycle / walking route does not require a 'permeable filter' or road barrier / closure.

The residents of Melbourne Grove had the option of a filter which would reduce 'through traffic' and make cycling / walking safer but allow residents vehicles etc., to enter and exit without negatively impacting neighbouring streets.

Instead it is proposed to introduce a 'permeable filter' traffic barrier to stop 'through traffic' entering and exiting Melbourne Grove reducing concerns / pollution on one road, while they the residents of that road remain free to drive their vehicles, via nearby streets creating congestion and pollution impacting other residents.

This is not changing local travel habits or reducing vehicle usage, it is empowering car / vehicle ownership for a minority, allowing them to redirect their usage onto already congested neighbouring streets.

messageRe: Melbourne Grove South Barrier
Posted by first mate June 07, 10:52PM

I am also really unclear how all this enhances social distancing in the area?

messageRe: Melbourne Grove South Barrier
Posted by sally buying June 07, 10:59PM

MG residents can stay in their cars on their private road whilst other have to walk etc. therefore social distancing.

messageRe: Melbourne Grove South Barrier
Posted by KalamityKel June 08, 07:38AM

first mate Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am also really unclear how all this enhances
> social distancing in the area?

It's the councils' sneaky way to justify the plans. By making out it's an essential implementation in the "battle" against the virus they're getting their own way. The approach is clever, shame the plan isn't *sighs

messageRe: Melbourne Grove South Barrier
Posted by first mate June 08, 08:35AM

KK, yes, but it is interesting that although the Council’s ‘emergency’ justification for the MG barrier is to do with social distancing that all those who have come on to voice support have changed the direction of justification to align with the old, original proposal. Social distancing is not mentioned...at all!

messageRe: Melbourne Grove South Barrier
Posted by Penguin68 June 08, 09:06AM

I am also really unclear how all this enhances social distancing in the area?

If you can get the council to create a virtual gated community for you, you will be wonderfully socially distanced from the hoi polloi milling about outside your enclave.

messageRe: Melbourne Grove South Barrier
Posted by rollflick June 08, 10:11AM

This scheme is about enabling far more people to walk and cycle, in recognition that capacity on public transport is seriously limited due to social distancing.

Melbourne Grove has been repeatedly designated as a future local cycling route but the council has failed to deliver. Trouble is the council has now also failed to communicate this plan or explain that it has a legal obligation to provide for dramatically increased levels of walking and cycling.

Given this legal obligation, anyone writing into the council to complain based on the comments in this thread is wasting their time, as well as that of officers and councillors. If you have a better suggestion that can be delivered in a similar length of time that could be different. Certainly there is a case for also filtering Crystal Palace Road too (rather than as an alternative).

messageRe: Melbourne Grove South Barrier
Posted by Rockets June 08, 10:18AM

Everyone knows that these measures have nothing to do with social distancing, it is wanton opportunism by the council to circumvent their own consultation and due-diligence processes (which, it has to be said, are usually implemented with the same attitude to democracy, fairness and balance as a directive from the politburo).

Take a look at their long list of fast-tracked programmes throughout the borough, all but a handful are those that they had in the consultation system already and have nothing to do with Covid.

If these changes cause the problems many suspect then will have to ensure those who supported them are held accountable for their actions - but, as we see so many times with this version of the Labour party no-one is ever responsible and it is always someone else's fault.

messageRe: Melbourne Grove South Barrier
Posted by Charles Notice June 08, 10:18AM

How will this encourage more people to walk are they all going to walk in the road ?

messageRe: Melbourne Grove South Barrier
Posted by rahrahrah June 08, 10:33AM

Lambeth have acting incredibly quickly to bring in new emergency schemes, aimed at enabling social distancing and active travel, in response to COVID-19. They have created several 'low traffic neighbourhoods' in just weeks, extended pavements and put in temporary cycle lanes and road closures. Southwark on the other hand have just accelerated a few schemes which they were pursuing anyway. Nothing new and very little in East Dulwich. It is impossible to shop on Lordship Lane and to keep 2 metres distance from other people - yet they have not widened the pavements, even at the worst pinch points.
I don't have a problem with the Melbourne Grove barrier per se, but I do wish that the council would follow Lambeth's lead and take a wider view.

messageRe: Melbourne Grove South Barrier
Posted by rahrahrah June 08, 10:36AM

Rockets Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Everyone knows that these measures have nothing to
> do with social distancing, it is wanton
> opportunism by the council to circumvent their own
> consultation and due-diligence processes (which,
> it has to be said, are usually implemented with
> the same attitude to democracy, fairness and
> balance as a directive from the politburo).
>
> Take a look at their long list of fast-tracked
> programmes throughout the borough, all but a
> handful are those that they had in the
> consultation system already and have nothing to do
> with Covid.
>
> If these changes cause the problems many suspect
> then will have to ensure those who supported them
> are held accountable for their actions - but, as
> we see so many times with this version of the
> Labour party no-one is ever responsible and it is
> always someone else's fault.

I agree with this. They have accelerated schemes they were planning already, instead of responding to the current crisis. As it happens, I'm not opposed to the former, but I am very disappointed at their failure in respect to the latter.

messageRe: Melbourne Grove South Barrier
Posted by first mate June 08, 10:39AM

Any barrier should be easily removable for emergency access. This would not affect the walking or cycling aspect. However, the barriers indicated, along with the double yellow lines, look to be far more permanent, despite all the empty rhetoric around feedback to see if they make a positive difference.

I am also sure this council is more than capable of dressing up a different agenda to look as though it is meeting govt imposed legal obligations, after all, who has oversight or is checking?

rollflick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This scheme is about enabling far more people to
> walk and cycle, in recognition that capacity on
> public transport is seriously limited due to
> social distancing.
>
> Melbourne Grove has been repeatedly designated as
> a future local cycling route but the council has
> failed to deliver. Trouble is the council has now
> also failed to communicate this plan or explain
> that it has a legal obligation to provide for
> dramatically increased levels of walking and
> cycling.
>
> Given this legal obligation, anyone writing into
> the council to complain based on the comments in
> this thread is wasting their time, as well as
> that of officers and councillors. If you have a
> better suggestion that can be delivered in a
> similar length of time that could be different.
> Certainly there is a case for also filtering
> Crystal Palace Road too (rather than as an
> alternative).

messageRe: Melbourne Grove South Barrier
Posted by Abe_froeman June 08, 11:52AM

what kind of cycle route would they put in on Melbourne Grove?!

messageRe: Melbourne Grove South Barrier
Posted by rahrahrah June 08, 12:06PM

If the council want to make it easier for people to social distance and support local shops as things start opening up again, then the single most pressing local challenge is along Lordship Lane.

Then there is the need to quickly create space outside of schools (which they are taking some action on, but not everywhere).

Lastly, they should be looking to create segregated cycle lanes into central London to enable people to get to work, whilst avoiding public transport or having to resort to cars. This could most obviously be done along the 'Southwark Spine' route (so down Crystal palace and Bellenden Road an on northwards). They need to be radical. All they have done so far is to bring forward a few discrete projects they had planned already.

Lambeth on the other hand are creating new 'low traffic' neighbourhoods, widening pavements and creating previously unplanned cycle routes. They are acting with urgency.

We need much bolder and strategic action.

messageRe: Melbourne Grove South Barrier
Posted by rahrahrah June 08, 12:16PM

Or even bring some of the cycle hire schemes to the south of the borough

messageRe: Melbourne Grove South Barrier
Posted by snowy June 08, 12:17PM

That’s taking place - both new permanent sites and temporary ones.

messageRe: Melbourne Grove South Barrier
Posted by ianr June 08, 12:30PM

rollflick wrote:
-----------------

> Melbourne Grove has been repeatedly
> designated as a future local cycling
> route but the council has failed to
> deliver. Trouble is the council has now
> also failed to communicate this plan or
> explain that it has a legal obligation
> to provide for dramatically increased
> levels of walking and
> cycling.

Where do the designation and the legal obligation reside?

messageRe: Melbourne Grove South Barrier
Posted by first mate June 08, 12:39PM

I expect we may not always be on the same page but I agree and this tunnel vision, pick and mix approach will increase pressure on Lordship Lane and ED Grove...while a handful of residents reap the benefits.

You cannot put the needs of one section of the community before everyone else. Of course we must protect children but it is not only about children and cyclists. We must also consider the needs of those who cannot cycle and who may not be able to walk very far. We absolutely must consider access for emergency services, especially now. The Council and its stakeholders are not thinking this through, instead they are reverting to old ideas and coveted solutions, in an almost blinkered manner, and repurposing them to fit the moment and legal obligations.

I still fear that underpinning the above is an eye to CPZ and generating income in future. If emergency measures were really a genuine and thinking response to the current situation I suspect the solutions might look a bit different. The fact that they are old, pre-covid ideas just looks dodgy.


rahrahrah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If the council want to make it easier for people
> to social distance and support local shops as
> things start opening up again, then the single
> most pressing local challenge is along Lordship
> Lane.
>
> Then there is the need to quickly create space
> outside of schools (which they are taking some
> action on, but not everywhere).
>
> Lastly, they should be looking to create
> segregated cycle lanes into central London to
> enable people to get to work, whilst avoiding
> public transport or having to resort to cars. This
> could most obviously be done along the 'Southwark
> Spine' route (so down Crystal palace and Bellenden
> Road an on northwards). They need to be radical.
> All they have done so far is to bring forward a
> few discrete projects they had planned already.
>
> Lambeth on the other hand are creating new 'low
> traffic' neighbourhoods, widening pavements and
> creating previously unplanned cycle routes. They
> are acting with urgency.
>
> We need much bolder and strategic action.

messageRe: Melbourne Grove South Barrier
Posted by exdulwicher June 08, 01:33PM

Quote:
Lambeth on the other hand are creating new 'low traffic' neighbourhoods, widening pavements and creating previously unplanned cycle routes. They are acting with urgency.
We need much bolder and strategic action.

Agree with what @rahrahrah said above. Piecemeal bits here and there don't work (or at least, any benefits are very tiny because people don't change their habits for such a tiny inconvenience, they just drive around it).

Would have been the ideal time to put in the full Healthy Streets plan on a temporary basis. Lambeth have got some good stuff going on actually, the vast majority of it has been well managed.

messageRe: Melbourne Grove South Barrier
Posted by first mate June 08, 01:52PM

The definition of what constitutes “healthy“ has shifted with Covid. Accessible and equitable social distancing across the community is what we need and the needs of the elderly and extremely vulnerable are especially important and must be carefully considered. Emergency access is vital for them as is the ability to travel by whatever means they are able to, safely. I am not wholly convinced that the old plans meet those needs but I may be wrong.

messageRe: Melbourne Grove South Barrier
Posted by Rockets June 08, 01:58PM

That's the point the council seems to overlook - traffic doesn't just disappear - it goes another route.

Look at the origins of the lie the council was telling in relation to a supposed 40% increase in traffic through the Dulwich Village area to try to justify the "improvements" they were suggesting (and will now roll-out under their Covid emergency powers). The 40% increase they touted was an increase in traffic between the time they were doing the roadworks (when traffic dropped hugely as DC became impassable) and then the time after the works were completed. The numbers went back up to something slightly lower than before the roadworks very quickly thereafter. It doesn't take a PHD in traffic management to realise that during the period of the roadworks the traffic found another route.

All of the measures being put in place by the council under their Covid powers are all designed to stop through traffic (DV, Champion Hill, Melbourne Grove, Goodrich Road) but they haven't spent any time trying to work out where that traffic will go next and what impact that will have on the roads not being closed to traffic. The utopian view of the world is that everyone will jump on bikes or walk - yet they won't - no-one is stupid enough to actually believe that.

Goto Page: Previous1234Next
Current Page: 2 of 4

Back to top of page
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Donate                   Terms of use                  Help & FAQs                   Advertise               RSS rss feed               Copyright 2006 - 2018 East Dulwich Forum