Urgent: Help Reopen Closed Melbourne Grove and adjacent roads

[Abe_froeman]

They are putting in some speed humps huggers

[first mate]

What is the latest on the Southwark Road Closure petition? I cannot now seem to get the links that were working to direct to the right information, instead they are linking to a Southwark minutes and meetings, which is very odd.

Can someone post up a link that works and latest count please?

[Jules-and-Boo]

Let's be fair. No one wants traffic on their road, nor do they want to sit on traffic caused by closed roads.

Solution. Close ALL side roads, force traffic to main roads and thereby force people to think about if they really have to get in their car. Solid traffic should deter lazy drivers and there would be a natural thinning if traffic.

[richard tudor]

Then set up stalls to sell drinks and food along the road as traffic goes nowhere.

Workmen will charge you a full days work as they will only manage one visit over the course of the day.

[ianr]

Given that the experiment has been implemented, is there any virtue in allowing some time to see how it works out before reaching any definite conclusions or making any demands?

[ED - NAGAIUTB]

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

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

> Let's be fair. No one wants traffic on their road,

> nor do they want to sit on traffic caused by

> closed roads.

>

> Solution. Close ALL side roads, force traffic to

> main roads and thereby force people to think about

> if they really have to get in their car. Solid

> traffic should deter lazy drivers and there would

> be a natural thinning if traffic.

The most moronic reply yet on a thread bursting at the seems with them.

[march46]

ianr Wrote:

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

> Given that the experiment has been implemented, is

> there any virtue in allowing some time to see how

> it works out before reaching any definite

> conclusions or making any demands?

This.

[KidKruger]

the link works fine, it's further up this thread. do some scrolling and you will find it.

"2112 people have signed this ePetition."

first mate Wrote:

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

> What is the latest on the Southwark Road Closure

> petition? I cannot now seem to get the links that

> were working to direct to the right information,

> instead they are linking to a Southwark minutes

> and meetings, which is very odd.

>

> Can someone post up a link that works and latest

> count please?

[Jules-and-Boo]

ED - NAGAIUTB Wrote:

---------------------------------------------- The most moronic reply yet on a thread bursting at the seems with them.

Thanks. I really tried.

[n dulwich northerner]

ianr Wrote:

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

> Given that the experiment has been implemented, is

> there any virtue in allowing some time to see how

> it works out before reaching any definite

> conclusions or making any demands?

Not really - a couple of weeks seems long enough to show the detrimental impact on neighbouring areas. Rather than persevering, other approaches might be tested. For example, moving the planters to the middle of the Melbourne Grove roads allowing customer parking for the shops at one end, making the roads one way, adding "give priority" narrowing, or putting things back as they were and seeing the CPZ's impact. Use the time to experiment and evaluate rather than persist with one hamfisted measure.

[exdulwicher]

Not really - a couple of weeks seems long enough to show the detrimental impact on neighbouring areas. Rather than persevering, other approaches might be tested. For example, moving the planters to the middle of the Melbourne Grove roads allowing customer parking for the shops at one end, making the roads one way, adding "give priority" narrowing, or putting things back as they were and seeing the CPZ's impact. Use the time to experiment and evaluate rather than persist with one hamfisted measure.

Two weeks is nowhere near enough. You need 6 months minimum to get meaningful data, work out the medium-term trends and extrapolate from there.

Especially at this time when people could be self-isolating for 2 weeks, schools have only just gone back, there's a marked difference in "normal" commuting patterns. Takes a while for all that to work through the system.

The absolute worst thing that could be done now is taking them up again, that would just be a total waste of time and money and wouldn't give any meaningful information.

[n dulwich northerner]

Then give it another couple of weeks as schools are back. No big deal. Then accept it's a hamfisted change and try something different. But leave it as it is and things won't get better, probably much worse once work patterns are more back to more normal.

[alex_b]

Huggers Wrote:

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

> today- Amott road, Oglander road and Linden Grove

> all bearing diversion/closed signs. Roadworks or

> something more sinister?

Amott is being resurfaced the notices have been up for a while. It?s hardly conspiracy worthy.

[Rockets]

exdulwicher Wrote:

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

> Not really - a couple of weeks seems long enough

> to show the detrimental impact on neighbouring

> areas. Rather than persevering, other approaches

> might be tested. For example, moving the planters

> to the middle of the Melbourne Grove roads

> allowing customer parking for the shops at one

> end, making the roads one way, adding "give

> priority" narrowing, or putting things back as

> they were and seeing the CPZ's impact. Use the

> time to experiment and evaluate rather than

> persist with one hamfisted measure.

>

> Two weeks is nowhere near enough. You need 6

> months minimum to get meaningful data, work out

> the medium-term trends and extrapolate from

> there.

>

> Especially at this time when people could be

> self-isolating for 2 weeks, schools have only just

> gone back, there's a marked difference in "normal"

> commuting patterns. Takes a while for all that to

> work through the system.

>

> The absolute worst thing that could be done now is

> taking them up again, that would just be a total

> waste of time and money and wouldn't give any

> meaningful information.

But are they really interested in meaningful data - the monitoring has been half-hearted at best, It's as if they don't feel the need to provide any proof anything will have actually worked.

Surely you need to have established the base before analysing the impact? The council did not do that and have only started monitoring sometime after the closures went in.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

"the monitoring has been half-hearted at best,"

How do you get to that conclusion?

[Spartacus]

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

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

> "the monitoring has been half-hearted at best,"

>

> How do you get to that conclusion?

I suspect that because they have no base data taken from before the measures were implemented so it appears that the council are really only playing lip service to monitoring and showing the effects (good or bad)

It's a bit like a recent tfl survey that said the majority of (1000) people surveyed are happy with LTNs that's almost as bad as the adverts for hair products (78% of 128 women agree ....) sadly not a conclusive survey.

So the issue is a scheme rushed in too quickly, with no base data resulting in massive resentment by those directly effected.

If the council do a proper unbiased survey and use pre and post implementation monitoring of schemes then maybe, just maybe people might start to trust them again.

[Rockets]

And it makes zero sense only monitoring the closed roads....it?s a given traffic will decrease on the closed roads. They must think people are stupid.....for too long they have been treating people as exactly that....weaving a false and misleading narrative to justify their plans and zero accountability when thing don?t work.....remember their first meddling with the DV Junction led to an increase in pollution (from their own report)...the exact opposite of what they were trying to achieve.

So yes, the monitoring has been half-hearted at best and the more people scratch beneath the surface the more frustrated they get - it?s why 1500 people have signed up to support One Dulwich, it?s why 2200 people have signed the e-petition on the council?s website to pull all the road closures out everywhere. The council have created this rod for their own backs with pathetic communication and their continued silence let?s the dissenting voices grow louder and larger in number every day. There is rule of communications, if you don?t speak then someone else will fill the void for you and that?s when you lose control. The council has lost control of this narrative and is backing themselves into a corner. The closures were rushed, poorly planned, poorly implemented and ultimately with fail in their stated goals.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

", it?s why 2200 people have signed the e-petition on the council?s website"

...because a bunch of cabbies on Twitter who hate Sadiq Khan and speed bumps have signed up to it. They couldn't give a stuff about air pollution or the quality of Dulwich residents' lives.

[Rockets]

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

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

> ", it?s why 2200 people have signed the e-petition

> on the council?s website"

>

> ...because a bunch of cabbies on Twitter who hate

> Sadiq Khan and speed bumps have signed up to it.

> They couldn't give a stuff about air pollution or

> the quality of Dulwich residents' lives.

But you don't know that for fact do you? I know plenty of people who have signed it and not one of them is a cabbie....I have heard school what's app groups have been distributing the link. The important thing is the council have to respond to the e-petition now it is over 500 signatures....so we wait to see how they decide to respond....

There's also 1500 people signed up for One Dulwich and One Dulwich publishes a map showing where those people are located in Dulwich - so I suggest they aren't cabbies (either that or a lot of cabbies live around here!!) ;-)

[redpost]

usual naive reasoning yet again here:

1) any immediate 'before' monitoring would be during the lockdown, so data would be utterly useless anyway

2) anyway, how do you know there is no before monitoring? I thought only the court lane illuminati had access to this data?

3) 'before' can easily be extrapolated from previous monitoring in any case with a known variance (e.g. figures from 2y ago can be adjusted upwards to account for general traffic increase with a known error of +-10% say)

4) data is available from smartphones (e.g. google maps shows congestion levels)

the traffic dept have software to do all of this, it's scientific and it works, but hey what do they know?

Spartacus Wrote:

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

> Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

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

> -----

> > "the monitoring has been half-hearted at best,"

> >

> > How do you get to that conclusion?

>

> I suspect that because they have no base data

> taken from before the measures were implemented so

> it appears that the council are really only

> playing lip service to monitoring and showing the

> effects (good or bad)

> It's a bit like a recent tfl survey that said the

> majority of (1000) people surveyed are happy with

> LTNs that's almost as bad as the adverts for hair

> products (78% of 128 women agree ....) sadly not a

> conclusive survey.

>

> So the issue is a scheme rushed in too quickly,

> with no base data resulting in massive resentment

> by those directly effected.

>

> If the council do a proper unbiased survey and use

> pre and post implementation monitoring of schemes

> then maybe, just maybe people might start to trust

> them again.

[ab29]

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

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

> ", it?s why 2200 people have signed the e-petition

> on the council?s website"

>

> ...because a bunch of cabbies on Twitter who hate

> Sadiq Khan and speed bumps have signed up to it.

> They couldn't give a stuff about air pollution or

> the quality of Dulwich residents' lives.

Oh dear. I don't drive - I don't even have a driving licence. I signed the petition because I don't think it is fair to treat people living on the roads that take the extra traffic with more noise and pollution while very few actually benefit from this scheme.

[sandyman]

I'm not saying the closures should not be reversed ? we are among those currently getting stuck in terrible jams in every direction, but as i understand it the government funded the closures.

If they are reversed who pays for that?

[micromacromonkey]

ab29 Wrote:

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

> micromacromonkey Wrote:

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

> -----

> > first mate Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > >

> >

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

>

> >

> > > ay.aspx?id=500000049

> > >

> > > 2069 now

> >

> > 2069 people who don't realise that driving to

> the

> > shops down the street of your choice is not a

> > fundamental human right.

>

>

> I don't drive - I don't even have a driving

> licence. I signed the petition because I think it

> is not fair to treat people living on the streets

> that take the extra traffic now with significantly

> more noise and pollution - do you?

That would not be a valid reason to sign the petition though. This whole thing is being done as a nudge tactic to get people out of their cars. For this to happen, the situation has to be annoying enough for people to decide to take an alternative form of transport instead, or perhaps travel at a different time (or just not make the journey at all if it's not necessary). That's the phase we're in now. Temporarily raised pollution on some streets is 'collateral damage' I guess, although of course it's not a welcome situation.

The BEST way to achieve the stated aim would be to apply statutory restrictions such as are currently applied in Mexico City, and have also been applied in Paris (based on pollution levels I think). In this model you get to drive your car every other day. I imagine that the naysayers here would be horrified by this option also.

[Rockets]

redpost Wrote:

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

> usual naive reasoning yet again here:

>

> 1) any immediate 'before' monitoring would be

> during the lockdown, so data would be utterly

> useless anyway

> 2) anyway, how do you know there is no before

> monitoring? I thought only the court lane

> illuminati had access to this data?

> 3) 'before' can easily be extrapolated from

> previous monitoring in any case with a known

> variance (e.g. figures from 2y ago can be adjusted

> upwards to account for general traffic increase

> with a known error of +-10% say)

> 4) data is available from smartphones (e.g. google

> maps shows congestion levels)

>

> the traffic dept have software to do all of this,

> it's scientific and it works, but hey what do they

> know?

>

>

>

> Spartacus Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > "the monitoring has been half-hearted at

> best,"

> > >

> > > How do you get to that conclusion?

> >

> > I suspect that because they have no base data

> > taken from before the measures were implemented

> so

> > it appears that the council are really only

> > playing lip service to monitoring and showing

> the

> > effects (good or bad)

> > It's a bit like a recent tfl survey that said

> the

> > majority of (1000) people surveyed are happy

> with

> > LTNs that's almost as bad as the adverts for

> hair

> > products (78% of 128 women agree ....) sadly not

> a

> > conclusive survey.

> >

> > So the issue is a scheme rushed in too quickly,

> > with no base data resulting in massive

> resentment

> > by those directly effected.

> >

> > If the council do a proper unbiased survey and

> use

> > pre and post implementation monitoring of

> schemes

> > then maybe, just maybe people might start to

> trust

> > them again.

Let me correct you on a couple of things.

Firstly, these closures were planned long before Covid and there was a "consultation" process in progress when the council used Covid as the trojan horse to get them in (remember they first pushed this on the basis of the need for social distancing -see Cllr McAsh posts on said subject).

We know there was no "before" monitoring because the council admitted that they were only monitoring the closed roads (due to lack of budget) then found the budget to do it when people said...how are you going to monitor how successful it's been if you can't see if all that has happened is the traffic has been displaced. This monitoring went in a month or so after the closures happened and as lockdown began to lift. So they have no base - they can, however, tell you how quiet the closed roads are.

"Before" can be easily extrapolated ONLY if they had been monitoring the roads where displacement has taken place but there is no sign they had been. In fact, people have asked repeatedly to see the modelling the council will have had to have done on displacement but nothing has been forthcoming. People are, quite rightly, asking why are they not sharing that info. Why? Because in all likelihood their modelling will have shown the impact on the displacement roads. But of course this is part of the plan (but no-one will ever admit this) - by closing some roads you make the displacement roads so unbearable that you hope people find another means of transport. But only 10% of people do. So I can guarantee you someone in the roads department said: "Hang on, this is going to cause chaos elsewhere - the displacement roads can handle the increase in traffic.

Let's also remember the council uses monitoring to help them justify the closures so, in the DV area for example, they only have figures in the consultation documents for monitoring on the roads they wanted to close.

If data is so readily available and accurate from smartphones (I am not convinced you can just go to Google and say please give me all of your users' data - you certainly can't do it with Apple) then why do the council rely so heavily on monitoring strips across the road? That in itself suggests that is still their preferred option for data collection.

Why are they refusing to monitor pollution?

Let's also ground this discussion on the fact the council lied about the increase in traffic through the DV junction to justify their original closure plan before Covid. The 47% increase in traffic flow through the junction was a stat that was, at best, utterly misleading, at worst the worst case of deliberately feeding the constituents completely erroneous data to try to build support for their plans.

Not much of the above appears as na?ve reasoning to me....the only naivety has been on the part of the council who hoped people wouldn't start scratching beneath the surface or asking the difficult questions they don't want to answer.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

"Let's also ground this discussion on the fact the council lied..."

Why ground the discussion in a lie?