More ?Permeable Barriers?

[ed_pete]

Locking this one too, too many duplicate messages- Admin

Elsie Road, Derwent Grove, Melbourne Grove (north), Tintagel Crescent

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50023482&Opt=0

[geh]

how do the existing Melbourne Grove businesses feel about this proposal, it looks potentially very harmful to them, the more sensible location would surely be at the Charter entrance?

Oh well, as they don't have a vote, its irrelevant anyway!

[march46]

Why ?harmful?? Customers needing to drive will still be able to.

People walking and cycling spend more time and money in local shops so making a road safer for both those categories could be beneficial.

[geh]

I was thinking mainly about the pizza place, and their deliveries, and Callow Locksmiths who I imagine have a lot of trade accounts, if you make it more difficult to access, people will go elsewhere

[Abe_froeman]

Those businesses only serve to encourage rat running anyway and cyclists and pedestrians spend more money

[bobbsy]

Wish they'd put some kind of barrier on Underhill Road...

[Serena2012]

To say I?m disappointed, as a resident of the section of EDG that will be directly impacted is an understatement. This is nimbyism in the extreme. I walk down Melbourne North, Elsie and Derwent regularly and far from being overrun by rat runners, they are in fact very very quiet. Indeed, it?s lucky if a single vehicle drives past in the time it takes me to walk down each road. What these proposals will do however is to force the many many car owners living on these roads past my front door whenever they leave their houses; as well as their tradesmen; delivery vans etc. The junction of Lordship Lane and EDG as well as the Goose Green roundabout are already saturated, yet Southwark think it is acceptable to add to the number of vehicles needing to use these on a daily basis.

It will come as no surprise that (based on my review of 2011 census data) the section of EDG set to suffer far worse traffic as a direct consequence of this, does not have a resident?s association; we have far lower owner occupiers than any of the streets standing to benefit; significantly more social housing; a significantly greater BAME population; and far lower levels of car ownership. It is hard to believe that a labour council thinks this is appropriate, particularly as a ?green? initiative in the middle of a global pandemic where individuals from a BAME background are already at far greater risk of contracting coronavirus and dying from it.

As with the sister schemes already implemented on Melbourne South and in Dulwich Village, all these schemes do is to divide the community; displace traffic and significantly increase air pollution elsewhere by increasing the volume of traffic on roads that cannot cope with it, thereby significantly increasing the amount of idling traffic.

Except for the very very few school children who live on Tintagel Crescent or Melbourne North, practically every child going to school in the area will need to intersect with an A road at some stage. Making these roads more polluted and congested than ever before cannot be in anyone?s interests.

[roywj]

The traffic along East Dulwich Grove & Goose Green roundabouts will become a nightmare. The junction of Lordship Lane & East Dulwich Grove is already dangerous for pedestrians and will only become worse as it gets busier. Maybe with plans to also later close Townley Road the planners think more traffic will stay on Lordship lane?

Serena2012 Wrote:

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

> To say I?m disappointed, as a resident of the

> section of EDG that will be directly impacted is

> an understatement. This is nimbyism in the

> extreme. I walk down Melbourne North, Elsie and

> Derwent regularly and far from being overrun by

> rat runners, they are in fact very very quiet.

> Indeed, it?s lucky if a single vehicle drives past

> in the time it takes me to walk down each road.

> What these proposals will do however is to force

> the many many car owners living on these roads

> past my front door whenever they leave their

> houses. The junction of Lordship Lane and EDG as

> well as the Goose Green roundabout are already

> saturated, yet Southwark think it is acceptable to

> add to the number of vehicles needing to use these

> on a daily basis.

>

> It will come as no surprise that (based on my

> review of 2011 census data) the section of EDG set

> to suffer far worse traffic as a direct

> consequence of this, does not have a resident?s

> association; we have far lower owner occupiers

> than any of the streets standing to benefit;

> significantly more social housing; a significantly

> greater BAME population; and far lower levels of

> car ownership. It is hard to believe that a labour

> council thinks this is appropriate, particularly

> as a ?green? initiative in the middle of a global

> pandemic where individuals from a BAME background

> are already at far greater risk of contracting

> coronavirus and dying from it.

>

> As with the sister schemes already implemented on

> Melbourne South and in Dulwich Village, all these

> schemes do is to divide the community; displace

> traffic and significantly increase air pollution

> elsewhere by increasing the volume of traffic on

> roads that cannot cope with it, thereby

> significantly increasing the amount of idling

> traffic.

>

> Except for the very very few school children who

> live on Tintagel Crescent or Melbourne North,

> practically every child going to school in the

> area will need to intersect with an A road at some

> stage. Making these roads more polluted and

> congested than ever before cannot be in anyone?s

> interests.

[Rockets]

Perhaps Cllr McAsh might revisit the forum and grace us with his thoughts as it is clear that since the barriers went up traffic and pollution has increased significantly across his ward. One presumes that he is concerned about the increases in traffic caused by these closures.

[Serena2012]

Roywj- Agreed the junction of Lordship Lane and EDG is a fatal accident waiting to happen. It?s awful, and from

previous threads, it sounds very unlikely that traffic lights would work without descending the Goose Green roundabout into near constant gridlock, and as all these roads are bus routes, TFL is very very unlikely to allow this to be pushed through.

The sheer volume of traffic turning right from EDG onto Townley every time I?ve walked past in recent weeks suggests to me that it?s unlikely the load on EDG will lessen once Townley is shut. I have heard that Townley might end up as a school street rather than a permanent permeable closure, which is something.

Lordship Lane is busier than I?ve ever seen it at present; with huge tailbacks all along it, so it?s hardly in a position to absorb more traffic either. The reality is that rushing in these changes so hastily, and without adequate modelling is a recipe for disaster.

[geh]

this is an ironic post right?

]Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> Those businesses only serve to encourage rat

> running anyway and cyclists and pedestrians spend

> more money

[mrwb]

What are the peak hours Townley road will be closed for ?

[macutd]

Come on guys let's do something to stop it.

[KidKruger]

This is surely going to cause more than just traffic problems ?

How does one apply to have one's street (or your own part of the street) made 'car-less', or do you have to be a councillor or have someone from the council in your pocket ?

[Thorncombe]

Who is the person to contact?

Simply put these barriers won't change a thing and businesses will get less passing trade.

An alternative suggestion is perhaps one way traffic? Surely if something has to change this would offer a safer environment for all and ot disrupt traffic.

Though my experience of Southwark is that they do consultations then right away ignore them / actively bias surveys via leading questions. Prime example..

I have reviewed the ED CPZ consultation report. 69% residents were against and 91% businesses were against. Yet this is the quote I received from the project PM:

This decision was made by the cabinet member and ward councillors and is widely supported by residents.

As members of this forum have mentioned, all this would do is force longer journey's along already contested roads. More stationary vehicles and higher pollution.

Quite frankly in this current situation with public transport being recommended against it is bizarre. Moreover we bicker about the necessity of a car, yes a weekly shop, diy or going to the tip without a car is possible but very difficult.I have lived in London without one for over 10 years but the current situation pushed me to get one. It has ultimately improved my quality of life.

[Serena2012]

Thorncombe - I couldn?t agree more. In terms of who to contact, try the following:

Richard Livingstone: [email protected] (Southwark cabinet member for transport)

Dale Foden: [email protected] (Head of Highways)

The Goose Green ward councillors, including James McAsh: [email protected]

Helen Hayes MP: mailto:[email protected]

Thorncombe Wrote:

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

> Who is the person to contact?

>

> Simply put these barriers won't change a thing and

> businesses will get less passing trade.

>

> An alternative suggestion is perhaps one way

> traffic? Surely if something has to change this

> would offer a safer environment for all and ot

> disrupt traffic.

>

> Though my experience of Southwark is that they do

> consultations then right away ignore them /

> actively bias surveys via leading questions. Prime

> example..

> I have reviewed the ED CPZ consultation report.

> 69% residents were against and 91% businesses were

> against. Yet this is the quote I received from the

> project PM:

>

> This decision was made by the cabinet member and

> ward councillors and is widely supported by

> residents.

>

> As members of this forum have mentioned, all this

> would do is force longer journey's along already

> contested roads. More stationary vehicles and

> higher pollution.

>

> Quite frankly in this current situation with

> public transport being recommended against it is

> bizarre. Moreover we bicker about the necessity of

> a car, yes a weekly shop, diy or going to the tip

> without a car is possible but very difficult.I

> have lived in London without one for over 10 years

> but the current situation pushed me to get one. It

> has ultimately improved my quality of life.

[thebestnameshavegone]

Bingo

[JohnL]

This is how UK democracy works in every way on every level.

Thorncombe Wrote:

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

> Though my experience of Southwark is that they do

> consultations then right away ignore them /

> actively bias surveys via leading questions. Prime

> example..

> I have reviewed the ED CPZ consultation report.

> 69% residents were against and 91% businesses were

> against. Yet this is the quote I received from the

> project PM:

[Dulres3]

thebestnameshavegone Wrote:

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

> Bingo

Damn, you're so edgy and original.

> I have reviewed the ED CPZ consultation report.

> 69% residents were against and 91% businesses were

> against. Yet this is the quote I received from the

> project PM

>

> This decision was made by the cabinet member and

> ward councillors and is widely supported by

> residents.

And they wonder why the turnout for council elections hovers around the 30% mark in most wards.

[thebestnameshavegone]

11 posts, all about road closures.

How much do they pay you lot?

I'd ask for a pay rise

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

> thebestnameshavegone Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Bingo

>

> Damn, you're so edgy and original.

>

> > I have reviewed the ED CPZ consultation report.

>

> > 69% residents were against and 91% businesses

> were

> > against. Yet this is the quote I received from

> the

> > project PM

> >

> > This decision was made by the cabinet member and

>

> > ward councillors and is widely supported by

> > residents.

>

> And they wonder why the turnout for council

> elections hovers around the 30% mark in most

> wards.

[Spartacus]

thebestnameshavegone Wrote:

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

> 11 posts, all about road closures.

> How much do they pay you lot?

> I'd ask for a pay rise

Just shows the strength of people's feelings about the whole lack of consultation process by the council and even when they do consult the results are manipulated in favour of the councils goals (the CPZ results for example)

[bonaome]

march46 Wrote:

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

> People walking and cycling spend more time and

> money in local shops

It isn't as straightforward as that, sadly. The research published by the TFL team !NB: set up to promote cycling! that has led to this broadly held misinterpretation of the data actually says that pedestrians and cyclists spend less per visit. They spend more over the course of a month, but that's because they visit more frequently.

So for example ...

Anne lives local, walks to Ye Olde Hi Street Shoppe 4 times per month and spend ?2 per visit = ?8/month

vs.

Sue who drives once per month but spends ?6.

If you know of other data, I would be keen to see it.

[bonaome]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> cyclists and pedestrians spend

> more money

AFAIK that's not true but a misinterpretation of a TFL study - from the team set up to encourage cycling - which fails to account for weight (frequency) of visit * spend.

[Abe_froeman]

I simply don't believe that any of the pro road closures lobby would use dodgy data or wilfully misinterpret stats to further their campaign.

[Rebs_ED]

If roads like Derwent Grove are made effectively dead ends - what do things like the bin lorries do? Or delivery vans?