Urgent: Help Reopen Closed Melbourne Grove and adjacent roads

[Dulwichgirl82]

I think generally everyone is in agreement car use needs to be reduced

However this measure seems to sacrifice some roads (including schools, a nursery, Park, playground and shopping area) in order to protect a few residential roads. If this genuinely reduced traffic then I would be thrilled but I just feel this is benefiting a few affluent roads and having a significant negative impact on those, less affluent, which the traffic is being diverted to, aswell as impacting ?communal? space

The council should consider what could be done to actually equitably reduce traffic and that probably requires more significant intervention. I don?t think it?s fair to ask the children at east dulwich grove nursery for example to spend the next 18 months (or longer) having idling traffic polluting their playground, to give one example.

first mate Wrote:

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

> You are not really answering my question though.

>

> We all get the theory but we also need to address

> the reality. Owing to very recent measures there

> has been a sharp, unprecedented, rise in traffic

> displacement onto main routes, causing a massive

> rise in congestion. One effect is to negatively

> impact those who do need to make urgent journeys

> as well as reduce access to emergency services.

>

> These impacts are very, very recent. Do you view

> the suffering of some as necessary to secure an

> ambition to reduce car ownership?

>

>

>

> Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

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

> -----

> > first mate Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > Yes, but in the here and now, is it your

> > position

> > > that those with genuine urgent needs, as well

> > as

> > > requiring access to emergency services

> should,

> > > effectively, be sacrificed in the interests

> of

> > a

> > > long-term agenda to reduce car usage and

> > > ownership? Not forgetting that the overriding

> > > rationale of that agenda is to reduce

> pollution

> > to

> > > produce a healthier environment?

> >

> > You can't improve the lives of those with

> > "genuine, urgent needs" without getting rid of

> the

> > people whose journeys are not necessary. You

> could

> > make every road in London a dual carriageway

> and

> > there would still be traffic jams and

> pollution-

> > demand for free unrestricted road space is

> always

> > going to exceed supply in London. Everyone -

> > residents, businesses and travellers - is going

> to

> > have to change (and already is changing) the

> way

> > they get around and organise things to some

> > degree. That's not going to come without some

> > short term inconvenience and friction.

[Spartacus]

JonnoJ Wrote:

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

> If you care about the future of the planet,

> support these street restrictions.

> Think wider picture. Traffic is a catastrophe for

> the planet and reduces all our life spans due to

> pollution.

What about the ULEZ and Electric / hydrogen vehicles that we will all be moving too ?

Won't they have a bigger impact and as a result the argument that road closures are about pollution will "evaporate" as vehicles become cleaner

Will roads then be reopened as the environment argument is moot then ?

Sadly a lot of people feel that this is a direct attack on cars and not an environmental initiative due to the reasons mentioned above.

Remember, for the last 60 plus years we've been sold the dream of car ownership* it's not something people want to give up without a fight

* car ownership benefitted the government in the form of taxes so they are all partially responsible for selling us the dream !

[Dulres3]

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

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

> No, no, no, you don't need to read any of that.

> All you need is "common sense" and "stands to

> reason" and some half-remembered stuff about

> Archimedes and Newton. We're sick of all these

> experts and their so-called understanding and

> experience.

Have you actually read the document? Why don?t you enlighten us as to the statistical methods used in the models, and their validity. Don?t worry, I?ll understand the mathematics, so get as complicated and technical as you like.

My original point was that the changes in Dulwich aren?t happening in isolation. There are LTNs being implemented all over London. Whether you?re taking a long journey or short one by road, the fact of the matter is you?re just moving from over-congested cell to over-congested cell, and we?re approaching capacity. The sentiment in the original post was that short journeys are bad, long journeys are morally justifiable. The reality is that such a significant reduction in capacity will affect both equally, with the cumulative effects across cells making an even greater difference to longer journey times.

Traffic planners often reference ?induced demand? (a concept which itself isn?t as evidence based as is commonly understood), where increasing capacity causes more congestion as vehicles appear to utilise spare capacity. Let?s assume for a moment this is actually true, by removing local journeys from the equation you just end up with the same situation you?re in now. What matters is that capacity is actually vaguely appropriate for demand, and not artificially reduced to the point where things start to fall apart.

As for electric cars, even if they magically sequestered carbon and wafted purified air into the atmosphere as they drove around, they?d still be subject to the same ideologically driven policies. It?s obvious at this point it?s not really about pollution.

[exdulwicher]

Dulres3 Wrote:

> Have you actually read the document? Why don?t you

> enlighten us as to the statistical methods used in

> the models, and their validity. Don?t worry, I?ll

> understand the mathematics, so get as complicated

> and technical as you like.

>

Dogkennelhillbilly was being sarcastic.

If that helps at all.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

Dulres3 Wrote:

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

> Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

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

> -----

> > No, no, no, you don't need to read any of that.

> > All you need is "common sense" and "stands to

> > reason" and some half-remembered stuff about

> > Archimedes and Newton. We're sick of all these

> > experts and their so-called understanding and

> > experience.

>

> Have you actually read the document? Why don?t you

> enlighten us as to the statistical methods used in

> the models, and their validity. Don?t worry, I?ll

> understand the mathematics, so get as complicated

> and technical as you like.

>

> My original point was that the changes in Dulwich

> aren?t happening in isolation. There are LTNs

> being implemented all over London. Whether you?re

> taking a long journey or short one by road, the

> fact of the matter is you?re just moving from

> over-congested cell to over-congested cell, and

> we?re approaching capacity. The sentiment in the

> original post was that short journeys are bad,

> long journeys are morally justifiable. The reality

> is that such a significant reduction in capacity

> will affect both equally, with the cumulative

> effects across cells making an even greater

> difference to longer journey times.

>

> Traffic planners often reference ?induced demand?

> (a concept which itself isn?t as evidence based as

> is commonly understood), where increasing capacity

> causes more congestion as vehicles appear to

> utilise spare capacity. Let?s assume for a moment

> this is actually true, by removing local journeys

> from the equation you just end up with the same

> situation you?re in now. What matters is that

> capacity is actually vaguely appropriate for

> demand, and not artificially reduced to the point

> where things start to fall apart.

>

> As for electric cars, even if they magically

> sequestered carbon and wafted purified air into

> the atmosphere as they drove around, they?d still

> be subject to the same ideologically driven

> policies. It?s obvious at this point it?s not

> really about pollution.

You're fundamentally misunderstanding three things here:

- what induced demand is - no need to discuss it further here, there is plenty of literature free and online

- that there is no free market for supply of road space. It is always the state that is a monopolist on road supply, even if it doesn't operate or own it. Road supply isn't "artificially" reduced or increased: it's always created, reduced and maintained by the state for strategic objectives.

- there is an insatiable demand for free road space. Trying to match supply to that existing (let alone induced) demand is a fool's errand. We have known this for fifty years - remember that the GLC was planning to put a motorway through Norwood and Streatham! Even if all vehicles ran on wishes and dreams tomorrow, we would STILL have huge congestion problems.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Ringways

[eastdulwichhenry]

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

> We have known this for fifty years - remember that

> the GLC was planning to put a motorway through

> Norwood and Streatham! Even if all vehicles ran on

> wishes and dreams tomorrow, we would STILL have

> huge congestion problems.

He he, the ringways scheme... that would certainly have taken this debate to a new level. Check out https://www.roads.org.uk/ringways/ringway1/south-cross-route for some particular amusement. The motorway was set to run along the Peckham Rye-Denmark Hill-Clapham High Street railway line and would have obliterated Blenheim Grove, swept across Camberwell Grove, turned Denmark Hill station into an island on the central reservation and, strangest of all, shot right over the skies of Brixton without even offering residents there a junction to get on and off.

[Abe_froeman]

If only they had built those roads. You can see how West and North London have prospered with the A4, A40 and A406 and how poorly South London has fared in comparison with the pathetic A205 and nothing else

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

Yes - if there's one thing West Londoners like to brag about, it's how much they love living under the Westway and how there's no traffic!

[eastdulwichhenry]

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

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

> Yes - if there's one thing West Londoners like to

> brag about, it's how much they love living under

> the Westway and how there's no traffic!

Lol. This is the problem with road building. However much you do it, and however well-intentioned, the roads still fill up and traffic on the local streets rarely goes down that much. Los Angeles is the craziest - all those ten lane Freeways, criss-crossing the entire urban area, but they're still jammed to capacity.

[Abe_froeman]

I actually lived there for a long time and the road network was a dream compared to here.

One parking permit zone across all of RBKC means you can park wherever you like / need to and there were always enough spaces but no problems with commuters

You can get out of London very quickly to head west, southwest and north . Getting south / south east took longer but it's hardly an easy journey from here

Public transport was also very good so it was really quite easy to leave the car at home for most journeys, whereas public transport here is dreadful.

Thinking about it more, maybe it's time for me to move back up that way.

[Rockets]

eastdulwichhenry Wrote:

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

> Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Yes - if there's one thing West Londoners like

> to

> > brag about, it's how much they love living

> under

> > the Westway and how there's no traffic!

>

> Lol. This is the problem with road building.

> However much you do it, and however

> well-intentioned, the roads still fill up and

> traffic on the local streets rarely goes down that

> much. Los Angeles is the craziest - all those ten

> lane Freeways, criss-crossing the entire urban

> area, but they're still jammed to capacity.

Yes and none of us are advocating building more roads we just don't want to see a load of them closed to through-traffic as the displacement and collateral pollution increases are horrendous.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

"Thinking about it more, maybe it's time for me to move back up that way"

90% of RBKC's schools are located in areas of illegally high levels of pollution. You're welcome to their fantastic road network.

https://airqualitynews.com/2018/02/14/kensington-chelsea-backs-ulez-extension/

[Slocky]

In no true sense of the word are Melbourne Grove and associated roads "closed". I walk and cycle along them regularly (and it's been much nicer recently) and I could drive down any of them if I wished to.

Perhaps we should cut back on the hyperbole until we've seen how these measures pan out in the long term.

[spider69]

If you did not live in them where would you be driving too, to see the barricades?

[northernmonkey]

Perhaps to go to the hairdressers or beauty salon or shop in fashion conscious - as despite the comments from the shops the road is open to cars from the other end and the same number of short stay places as before remain. In fact since the cpz they are now available for use for longer (paid) which is probably more useful as before all the free spaces were full of commuters and the short stay were 30mins max which isn?t helpful for a facial or haircut!

spider69 Wrote:

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

> If you did not live in them where would you be

> driving too, to see the barricades?

[Spartacus]

There is a factor that the argument for road closure fails to take into effect for businesses.

I mentally call it the blues brother shopping mall effect. In the original film they drove through a shopping mall calling out the businesses in it. Whilst it's not a shopping mall, cars traversing through a shopping street can result in driver / passenger spotting a business that they didn't know existed there, thus encouraging them to stop or return another day. This also has the opposite effect of when cars don't pass the business it becomes out of sight, out of mind !

Don't get me wrong as pedestrians and cyclists will have a similar effect however more often than not car drivers that experience the phenomenon will be from just outside of the area thus adding to the trade a business will normal get. (Cyclist and pedestrians are normally more local)

Equally if an area is harder to get to or park in, trade will naturally migrate to places that are easier for drivers, it's the unintentional side effect out of town shopping centres, retail parks and large supermarkets had on business in town centres from the 80s onwards.

So before people say "but the road is accessible from one end", think about what knock on effect it has on businesses located on it from passing trade and how it encourages people to shop elsewhere.

As I said before, these closures need a proper consultation and pre implementation study followed by a full post implementation study rather than the council rushing them in under the guise of "the moneys there now but we will lose it if we don't spend it" then spending more money when they have to, like Wandsworth , do a u-turn !

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2012/03/23/why-bicyclists-are-better-customers-than-drivers-for-local-business/

[Spartacus]

@fairTgirl how is the petition going ?

Has anyone set up one for Dulwich Village or can this one be amended to cover all of East Dulwich and the village ?

[Rockets]

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

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

> https://usa.streetsblog.org/2012/03/23/why-bicycli

> sts-are-better-customers-than-drivers-for-local-bu

> siness/

I can't wait until we see the East Dulwich equivalent of the Mineral Belt Trail in Leadville, Colorado. ;-)

[FairTgirl]

Hi, the petition is going very well, and there is a new petition now live on Southwarks website as well here;

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?id=500000049

I have also updated the original post as Richard Livingstone is no longer in his post, Councillor Catherine Rose is now in the role with a responsibility for Southwark roads. Also there is a new cabinet role for Low Traffic Southwark, and councillor responsible for that is Radha Burgess.

Please also email them to let them know your concerns about these road closures.

[email protected]

[email protected]

[FairTgirl]

Spartacus Wrote:

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

> There is a factor that the argument for road

> closure fails to take into effect for businesses.

>

> I mentally call it the blues brother shopping mall

> effect. In the original film they drove through a

> shopping mall calling out the businesses in it.

> Whilst it's not a shopping mall, cars traversing

> through a shopping street can result in driver /

> passenger spotting a business that they didn't

> know existed there, thus encouraging them to stop

> or return another day. This also has the opposite

> effect of when cars don't pass the business it

> becomes out of sight, out of mind !

>

> Don't get me wrong as pedestrians and cyclists

> will have a similar effect however more often than

> not car drivers that experience the phenomenon

> will be from just outside of the area thus adding

> to the trade a business will normal get. (Cyclist

> and pedestrians are normally more local)

>

> Equally if an area is harder to get to or park in,

> trade will naturally migrate to places that are

> easier for drivers, it's the unintentional side

> effect out of town shopping centres, retail parks

> and large supermarkets had on business in town

> centres from the 80s onwards.

>

> So before people say "but the road is accessible

> from one end", think about what knock on effect it

> has on businesses located on it from passing trade

> and how it encourages people to shop elsewhere.

>

> As I said before, these closures need a proper

> consultation and pre implementation study followed

> by a full post implementation study rather than

> the council rushing them in under the guise of

> "the moneys there now but we will lose it if we

> don't spend it" then spending more money when they

> have to, like Wandsworth , do a u-turn !

Thankyou Spartacus. So much of this is bang on.

For the past weeks all the businesses have heard from customers is;

'It is too hard/takes too long to get to you' - - because of increased traffic on surrounding roads

'We can't park' --- as 1/3-1/2 parking spaces have gone at the same time to make room for road closure

'I would normally pop in on way back from Sainsburys (insert other shop) but too hard now' - as would have to go to Lordship Lane and turn right onto EDG and turn into MB Grove from the other end.

All it takes is one very small barrier for people to not bother.

It's why so many businesses have their doors open - it is well documented an open door is one less barrier to the customers and an invitation in.

One business on Melbourne Grove says appointments are down 45% down in the past two weeks. They have been here for 24 years and never experienced such a sharp drop. This can't be purely coincidental.

Yes, there is access from the other end of MG but what they are hearing is that those who do drive for very valid reasons, elderly, disabled, from further afield, or need car for a larger uncarryable load, multiple kids etc are not stopping any more.

Customers are approaching the businesses of their own volition and saying, 'I am less likely to visit you'.

We all agree car usage must go down, especially for short journeys but you need to make it easier for people to make the change - invest in an infrastructure that encourages active travel - put in some more cycle lanes, limit car owner ship, incentivise car share schemes, add in more useful bus routes, subsidise public transport further. If safety/speeding is the issue look at one ways, speed bumps, ANPR cameras, timed restrictions.

Encourage people to use alternative methods with education and campaigning, but allow people the access they need when and where they need it, by car if they need to.

Don't grab some money, block off some roads, cross your fingers and hope for the best.

I am sure there will be some snippy replies 'Who cares about X cafe/restaurant/shop/hairdresser etc business', or more calls to boycott them by some kind residents but seriously, have a heart! Many have been operating here for over 15 years, and there are some brand new ones just trying to find their feet. They've all just seen their livelihoods take a battering with lockdown, probably another on its way.

Let's not forget they have been totally sidelined when it comes to this scheme on these roads. No conversation whatsoever.

Why should they have to wait 6 months to see if this 'beds in' and what if it doesn't? 6 months of watching their business die over key Christmas trading periods thanks to unconsulted road closures with lockdowns going on around them.

Is now really the time to be experimenting with livelihoods in this way?

We should be supportive and rally around local businesses with initiatives like the brilliant raffle scheme not tear into any that say, quite rightly, 'This is not OK'.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

I cannot recall any occasion on which I have ever heard a shopkeeper (including family members!) or taxi driver say anything in favour of any proposed change to traffic management. Not yellow lines, not red routes, not the congestion charge, not ULEZ, not CPZ, not school streets, and not LTNs. Not in Dulwich, not anywhere else I've lived. Perhaps this is a result of my own confirmation bias.

[first mate]

FairTgirl Wrote:

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

> Hi, the petition is going very well, and there is

> a new petition now live on Southwarks website as

> well here;

>

> http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDispl

> ay.aspx?id=500000049

>

> I have also updated the original post as Richard

> Livingstone is no longer in his post, Councillor

> Catherine Rose is now in the role with a

> responsibility for Southwark roads. Also there is

> a new cabinet role for Low Traffic Southwark, and

> councillor responsible for that is Radha Burgess.

>

> Please also email them to let them know your

> concerns about these road closures.

> [email protected]

> [email protected]

[FairTgirl]

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

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

> I cannot recall any occasion on which I have ever

> heard a shopkeeper (including family members!) or

> taxi driver say anything in favour of any proposed

> change to traffic management. Not yellow lines,

> not red routes, not the congestion charge, not

> ULEZ, not CPZ, not school streets, and not LTNs.

> Not in Dulwich, not anywhere else I've lived.

> Perhaps this is a result of my own confirmation

> bias.

Definitely in favour of timed closures for school streets. So there you go, you have heard one.

[first mate]

first mate Wrote:

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

> FairTgirl Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Hi, the petition is going very well, and there

> is

> > a new petition now live on Southwarks website

> as

> > well here;

> >

> >

> http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDispl

>

> > ay.aspx?id=500000049

> >

> > I have also updated the original post as

> Richard

> > Livingstone is no longer in his post,

> Councillor

> > Catherine Rose is now in the role with a

> > responsibility for Southwark roads. Also there

> is

> > a new cabinet role for Low Traffic Southwark,

> and

> > councillor responsible for that is Radha

> Burgess.

> >

> > Please also email them to let them know your

> > concerns about these road closures.

> > [email protected]

> > [email protected]

Hi, cannot seem to get that link to work. Is it meant to go direct to petition?