Rockets

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am not sure how you equate 8% as pretty > convincing support. I would consider 92% not > signing it as more convincing. > > Yeah, statistics don't work like that! ^^ > > Petitions are interesting and most councils will > give them lip service while trying their best to > ignore them because they can be horrendously > biased. There's a genuine art in creating a > petition that does not lead the respondent to > giving the "desired" answers from whichever side > of the fence you're on and most petitions created, > including a lot on Change.Org (because anyone can > create a petition on there) fall foul of that and > then can be ignored for that very reason. > > Thank you for your petition, unfortunately it was > a load of biased crap and we've therefore filed it > in the bin". > > I've posted this clip before on other threads but > it's worth highlighting - how to create "leading" > opinion polls/surveys: > It's ironic that councils will pay lip service to petitions due to them being flawed yet themselves create surveys and consultations that include some of the most biased and leading questions you will ever see! ;-) Trying to leave anything other than a glowing endorsement of their street closures is a battle in itself, although I notice they had edited it recently to give it more balance but version one was like Henry Kissinger addressing the media: "Does anyone have any questions for my answers."

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The council are chasing the displacement and that > is a very slippery path. > > They're not because there hasn't been time to > examine the outcome, propose further mitigation > and implement it. > > It's just the phasing of the agreed plans as they > don't have the resources to put everything in at > once, it's all going in over the space of about a > month or so. That's the same nationally by the > way, I don't have any behind the scenes insight > into Southwark other than what is on their > website. Were the closures of the roads surrounding Melbourne Grove part of the OHS plan? I am not sure how anyone can expect to drop a load of closures on a small area and not have a massively detrimental impact - or perhaps they don't care. On that point does aynone know whether other parts of Southwark are getting such concentrated clusters of road closures in a small area or has Dulwich been singled out for special attention?

thebestnameshavegone Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You can still drive round, if there's something > essential for you in Melbourne Grove? > > There is no 'nationwide campaign' - a newspaper, > worried about falling ad revenue, has to present > any story as something incendiary, or a 'fury' to > get clicks. > > The amount of vehicles on the roads has doubled in > the last 30 years, which isn't sustainable - so if > you're upset about the volume of traffic now, > unless more drastic measures are taken pretty soon > it will get far, far worse. But it's interesting isn't it, Southwark has one of the lowest car uses of all the London boroughs and the data presented (and then manipulated by the council for their own benefits) showed, quite clearly that there had been a gradual decline in the number of car journeys through the DV junction across 5 or so years. I think you will find there is a nationwide campaign beginning to grow - there is a lot of publicity about these closures in a broad range of media (I saw a piece on BBC London News some weeks ago on the same subject) and the more people who read or hear about it the more people likely to say "hang on a minute" and may question what is happening. It's the very essence of a grass roots campaign. Look at One Dulwich and the support they have. Look at the similar community-led action programmes all across London trying to get a more balanced and sensible approach to the problems. The councils have to do something to re-control the narrative else they will lose it completely and that has dire consequences for everyone - for or against.

thebestnameshavegone Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > I was on EDG at about 5pm today, there wasn't > > any > > > congestion at all. Is this kind of anecdata > > > useful? > > > > > > "the petition has nearly a thousand > signatures > > > which is about 8% of the total population of > > East > > > Dulwich" > > > > > > Yeah, but change.org petitions of any > > persuasion > > > are a load of old tut. Those signatories > aren't > > > all East Dulwich residents (or even > necessarily > > > all real). > > > > > > Let's be honest, Change.org petitions are a lot > > more transparent than the consultation surveys > the > > council conducts! ;-) > > > > The thing that the pro-closure lobby doesn't > seem > > to like right now is that there is a lot of > > dissent against the closures amongst a large > > swathe of the community and they seek to > > de-position and belittle to try and maintain > the > > impression that everything is great and it is a > > minority of petrol-heads making a lot of noise. > > For the pro group they aren't that happy that > the > > playing field is being levelled after having > the > > council echo-chamber to themselves for so long. > > The road isn't closed. None of the roads are > closed. You can still drive your brum brum where > you like. It might take longer. But if the journey > is indeed 'essential', that shouldn't be too much > of an issue. But they are closed to through-traffic aren't they? Whilst I hate the Daily Mail there is certainly a nationwide campaign starting against these closures and it will gain more and more momentum. The more people who become aware of it the more pressure will be heaped on councils to justify what they are doing and why they are doing it and they will have to prove it is having a positive impact. Previously they had carte blanche to put these things in place with little or no justification because there were only a few dissenting voices - the good thing now is there will have to be transparency where before there was none. If I was a betting man I think the council will end-up having to remove some of the closures - and then the pro-closure lobbies can fight amongst themselves over which roads re-open again! The folly was doing everything at once as the first closure in DV had a negative impact on EDG and now they have closed Melbourne it is making it even worse and each closure is amplifying the problem. When the timed closures in DV come in that will push huge amounts of traffic down Croxted Road and the A205 and Lordship Lane it's only going to get worse again. The council are chasing the displacement and that is a very slippery path.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I was on EDG at about 5pm today, there wasn't any > congestion at all. Is this kind of anecdata > useful? > > "the petition has nearly a thousand signatures > which is about 8% of the total population of East > Dulwich" > > Yeah, but change.org petitions of any persuasion > are a load of old tut. Those signatories aren't > all East Dulwich residents (or even necessarily > all real). Let's be honest, Change.org petitions are a lot more transparent than the consultation surveys the council conducts! ;-) The thing that the pro-closure lobby doesn't seem to like right now is that there is a lot of dissent against the closures amongst a large swathe of the community and they seek to de-position and belittle to try and maintain the impression that everything is great and it is a minority of petrol-heads making a lot of noise. For the pro group they aren't that happy that the playing field is being levelled after having the council echo-chamber to themselves for so long.

But where does the other 89% of traffic go that can no longer use the roads that are now closed? By that reckoning about 6,000 cars that used to use the DV junction will now be looking for another route. Therein lies the point....

But really bad optics don't you agree - that type of image sticks and forms opinions. If there are no double-yellows why not - council oversight probably? Once again, it is what happens when you rush to implement something and demonstrates how poorly executed it is being done across the country and is wonderful ammunition for the anti-closure lobby.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Then came OneDulwich and this galvanised > cross-Dulwich support for people who wanted a more > balanced discussion and finally there was a group > that could not be ignored by the council..." > > OneDulwich galvanised a lobby that had never > previously espoused any concern about air > pollution in Dulwich but were really upset when > they couldn't drive their car to the shops. Nonsense. What they did was take an area wide community-led approach and hit upon a vein of anti-closure sentiment brought upon by the myopic and biased approach to the CPZ and OHS taken by the council across multiple wards in the area. The council presented flawed presentation after presentation full of manipulated and misleading data to try and prove their point during the CPZ and OHS consultations and people lost their trust in the council. One Dulwich and its supporters agree that something has to be done but doesn?t agree with the way it is being done and felt that the measures put in place will make things worse rather than better (remember, you can expect about 11% reduction in car use). The council thought that the voices of a few streets and twitter accounts benefitting from the closures would drown out the negative sentiment that they had been trying to dilute by dividing and conquering. They did it with the CPZ (68% against dont forget) and were trying it again with OHS. One Dulwich has over 1300 named people (none of them children from families from the closure lobby...ahem Southwark council....) supporting a mandate to push for a fairer and more balanced approach to the challenge. The council cannot ignore them. Awareness is at an all time high and you can?t walk down Lordship Lane for hearing people talking about the negative impact of the closures. Everyone can see for themselves the additional congestion this is causing and even if that congestion would have been seen without the road closures due to a Covid that doesn?t matter now because the council is having to own it for the ham-fisted way they have handled this and previous projects. They are reaping what they have sowed and my biggest concern is that this may well do real damage to properly dealing with the pollution crisis as no-one will trust them again.

ExDulwicher - you make some very salient points in your post, many of which I completely agree with. The biggest problem the council has right now is two-fold: one of credibility the other of carpet bombing. The credibility narrative, or lack thereof, was set some while ago with the CPZ "consultations" when the council was felt, by many, to have railroaded their plans for East Dulwich through against the will of the majority of residents across East Dulwich. They were seen to manipulate the system to their advantage (and the benefit of those most vocal advocates), tried to dampen any dissenting voices (I remember very well the debacle of the CPZ meeting at the library) and tried to divide and conquer the naysayers. Then came the OHS "consultation" and the plans for Dulwich Village and the voices of dissent became more vocal but once again the council used the myriad of tactics at their disposal to try to silence the voices. Then came Covid and everything changed. Even the most ardent petrolhead could see that car usage would increase on the back of the fallout and things would need to change. But instead of creating new Covid plans the council just said - "we're going ahead with those plans that were already in the hopper". AT the same time they neglected any of the most pressing needs of the area such as providing social distancing on Lordship Lane. The perception was that with the TROs the council said, right, "here's our opportunity" and they misjudged the mood of the majority of the people. They carpet bombed closure plans left, right and centre and people said, "hang on a minute - we have lives to live and we are the ones being impacted by this". Then came OneDulwich and this galvanised cross-Dulwich support for people who wanted a more balanced discussion and finally there was a group that could not be ignored by the council. Suddenly, those who felt they were being overlooked and ignored had a voice. At the same time the advocates for change were dancing in the nearly formed squares and heralding the end of the car and beginning of the cycling nirvana many dreamed of. This antagonised a lot of people whose day to day live was being disrupted by the closures. It was clear that the first round of DV closures had created more congestion and pollution and that was before schools returned and people even thought about returning to work. Meanwhile the council pushed forward with the plans for more closures (yet acknowledged they had received a lot of negative feedback). So here we are today with a council that has created a lot of the problems for itself and much of it comes down to a lack of communication with the constituents and they face a massive uphill battle trying to convince a lot of people that what they are doing is in everyone's best interests. People don't trust them. Everyone I am meeting at the moment is saying the same thing: "What has the council done to the traffic" and not "The traffic is a lot worse due to Covid". And that is a very deep political hole to try and climb out of. You rightly say that there isn't one single thing to get us out of the conundrum but the problem is that the council has used a single instrument to try and resolve it and it is a blunt one at that.

stecoward101 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not sure why you sarcastic remark is needed. I > believe caring for the welfare of children walking > to school is more important that access to shops > both ways. Please remember that the shops are > still accessible to cars if they travel the other > way. > > I live, work and volunteer in this community so > maybe you should take your sarcasm and use it > where it works. ...but urging people not to use shops who are lobbying against the closures....that's not at all community minded.

stecoward101 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I notice the coffee shop is still doing well. I am > not sure cars drive down Melbourne Grove to buy a > smoothy or get keys cut, try on second hand > clothes or visit an Italian who has been empty for > over a year. Blocking off Melbourne Grove is a > great thing for local, cyclists and pedestrians > and also improves the safety of the children who > attend the school. I urge the local residents to > stop using the businesses that are trying to > unblock it. Wow.....what a wonderfully empathetic sense of community you are displaying....

TheCropolite Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think you?re still not getting it. There are too > many car trips in London, plain and simple. Data > from TFL shows that 35% of car trips are under > 2km. > > http://content.tfl.gov.uk/technical-note-14-who-tr > avels-by-car-in-london.pdf > > That?s under 30 mins walking or 10 mins by bike. > In London most of those 1-2km trips will be > quicker by bike or scooter etc. anyway. Some > people may need a car for transporting goods, > fine. But most (around 60%) of those trips are > also being made by single individuals with no > passengers. > > This government is not going to introduce sweeping > legislation to stem car use in London which I?m > not going to get into but if everyone who was > making those 1-2km trips by car stopped we would > have 35% less cars on the road which is a huge > number, which would also improve journey times for > those making longer trips or who really need to. > > You may think what they?re doing is stupid and is > not going to do anything, but I think in hindsight > you?ll hopefully realise that any measures to > reduce car use are good, and this is one such > measure. A little further analysis of the link you shared from TFL is very telling. Slide 14 Car Use by Geography shows the car use by London borough league table - at the top is Bexley, then Sutton, Hillingdon, Barnet, Harrow, Bromley.....Southwark comes a distant 26th out of 32 (with 32 being the best having the lowest car usage in London). Below Southwark are Hammersmith and Fulham, Haringey, Westminster, Hackney, Tower Hamlets and Islington - most of which have much better transportation links to, and across, the city compared to our part of Southwark. Southwark has a third less car journeys than neighbouring Bromley or Croydon. It would be great if the council understood where the traffic in Southwark emanates - is it locals going about their daily lives or is it from neighbouring boroughs because it appears to be the residents who are bearing the brunt of these closures.

TheCropolite Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > TheCropolite Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > tiddles Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > Rockets - spot on > > > > > > > > > You do realise this is what happens when you > > close > > > roads/lanes? There is an initial period where > > > congestion increases before it decreases. > > Google > > > it. > > > > > > 11% overall...Google it.....oh you don't need > to > > it was in the links you sent earlier....in > fact, > > if you had bothered to read the document links > you > > sent you will see that in Waltham Forest there > was > > a significant net increase in traffic on the > roads > > not closed and this did not go down. > > > > Can the other roads in East Dulwich accommodate > > the remaining 89% of traffic? Dulwich Village > has > > 7,000 car journeys per day through the Calton > > junction (the council's own numbers) - let's be > > very generous and say 1,000 of those journeys > are > > then made by other means - are you sure the > other > > roads that are not closed can accommodate > another > > 6,000 car movements per day? > > > > And that is just one junction. Then throw in > the > > other changes going in on Melbourne Grove, > Townley > > etc and you have a huge amount of traffic being > > forcibly funnelled down roads like Lordship > Lane > > and East Dulwich Grove. > > > > Do you see the problem a lot of us are > concerned > > about - this isn't sovling a problem it's > creating > > a much bigger one? It's classic traffic > > evaporation, it condenses and falls somewhere > > else. > > Of those 6000 car movements how many are > necessary? How many are over 1-2km? How many are > transporting more than one person? People need to > stop driving their cars like it?s their god given > right, it?s really not that complicated. Check the > data from that TFL link, it?s ridiculous. > > > P.S. this 11% number you keep giving is just one > example there are plenty of others where it is > significantly more than this. The problem is no-one knows about those 6,000 car journeys as the council never did that analysis - which we were saying they should have done as they didn't have the granularity to make a decision to close off Calton when they suggested it as part of OHS. I take TFL data with a huge pinch of salt - all the research goes round and round in circles and often comes back to being sourced from those with a vested interest in justifying their desire to close roads for cars. Regular poster on this forum ExDulwicher (who works in the business) says, if I remember correctly, that the most they have seen is 24% but the mean is very much 11%. And I remind you that the 11% came from one of the reports you sent out so by default you must agree with that stat as you were encouraing us to read it!!! ;-)

tiddles Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This was exactly my thoughts serena! I have been > informed by a councillor that the emergency > services were the first to be consulted and they > had no issues with the proposals - perhaps they > thought they would still have access? Who knows > but this has been me ?beef? since sitting in a > stationary south circular when 3 emergency > vehicles were trying to get thru. Everyone pulled > up on the pavements Emergency vehicle access was the downfall of the Loughborough Junction debacle and I wonder whether they have spoken their mind when they have seen the closures in that part of East Dulwich. Or maybe the council came unstuck with the plan to reverse bin lorries down each of the roads - can't imagine an HSE risk assessment of that would have been too favourable. Maybe the council are beginning to realise this is rushed and there are some significant negative consequences of that they are doing. The obsession with preventing east/west car journeys across the area may well prove to be the downfall of all of these plans. Some of them, in isolation, do make sense but collectively it is a recipe for disaster.

TheCropolite Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > tiddles Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Rockets - spot on > > > You do realise this is what happens when you close > roads/lanes? There is an initial period where > congestion increases before it decreases. Google > it. 11% overall...Google it.....oh you don't need to it was in the links you sent earlier....in fact, if you had bothered to read the document links you sent you will see that in Waltham Forest there was a significant net increase in traffic on the roads not closed and this did not go down. Can the other roads in East Dulwich accommodate the remaining 89% of traffic? Dulwich Village has 7,000 car journeys per day through the Calton junction (the council's own numbers) - let's be very generous and say 1,000 of those journeys are then made by other means - are you sure the other roads that are not closed can accommodate another 6,000 car movements per day? And that is just one junction. Then throw in the other changes going in on Melbourne Grove, Townley etc and you have a huge amount of traffic being forcibly funnelled down roads like Lordship Lane and East Dulwich Grove. Do you see the problem a lot of us are concerned about - this isn't sovling a problem it's creating a much bigger one? It's classic traffic evaporation, it condenses and falls somewhere else.

thebestnameshavegone Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We need to have fewer car trips in London. It?s > really simple. You?re either pro low traffic > stuff. Or you?re pro more car congestion. Well it looks like the pro-low traffic lobby are actually creating more congestion. Go figure..... Are people not allowed to acknowledge that there needs to be fewer car journeys in London but not agree with the cack-handed way the council is going about it?

Please, please stop quoting from two decade old reports - it appears to be the go-to "proof" that this is going to magically fix everything. It won't. And here is why and I am going to, somewhat hypocritically, quote from one of the two decade old reports you linked to to illustrate the point...;-) It says: In half of the case studies, there was a 11% reduction in number of vehicles across the whole area where roadspace for traffic was reduced, including the main roads. 11% - that scarily low magic number that makes you ponder what happens to the other 89% of traffic that used to use those routes......and the residents of Lordship Lane, East Dulwich Grove and anyone trying to use the A205 can probabyl give you a clue where it has gone and will continue to go.... And remember the trials like the oft heralded Waltham Forest were isolated, one area doing it which meant cars just went a different way. If you click through to the Waltham Forest report you will see that traffic increased massively on surrounding roads during the initial trial (up by as much as 158% in some cases) and then continued to register much greater traffic numbers after the full works were done. Can the streets around Dulwich absorb huge increases in traffic flow because of the closures - has the council even modelled this?

Ex - depends on who you speak to!!! It's either nirvana or armageddon and nothing in between! ;-)

Cllr McAsh - welcome back, I do hope the family emergency has been resolved and that you had a good summer. Some questions for you: - It has been two months since the Dulwich Village closures were put in place and due to these closures traffic has increased significantly along routes through your ward leading to, at times, severe congestion and increasing pollution. Are you concerned by the negative impact this is having on your constituents? - Please can you tell us where the council is monitoring car numbers and pollution levels on streets other than those that have been closed? It seems the council placed monitoring on the closed roads to be able to show how much traffic decreased but have done little monitoring on the roads where displacement is taking place. If monitoring has been put in on displacement roads when did the monitoring start? - When the emergency planning for these closures was being discussed what roads did the council identify as likely to bear the brunt of the displaced traffic? - Given the lack of a consultation process and the inability to have public meetings would you be supportive of a online virtual meeting hosted by all the councillors across the area to present to the community your thoughts and rationale behind the closures and to receive questions (using something like Slido would be a good way for constituents to submit questions to avoid it becoming a free for all). - Is it correct that the council is targeting a 50% reduction in car usage in the area and how is it going to monitor it across the whole area? It looks as if other projects have netted about an 11% reduction in car use (and that was before Covid) so are these closures just the tip of the iceberg or are the council setting unrealistic goals?

The issue remains that similar projects (and I hasten to add projects that were implemented before Covid and before people were wary of returning to public transport) have netted about an 11% reduction in car use, meaning that 89% of the journeys merely are being done via other routes. The reason they are having to close off the roads around Grove Vale is that when they close Melbourne Grove all the cars will try to find another route. They are chasing the displacement. Close one road here, the cars go there so you close that road too. This then funnels even more traffic down the main roads massively increasingly the pollution as more cars spend time idling in traffic for longer - it has been happening for the last two months only EDG and Lordship Lane since the DV closures. The closures in Dulwich Village are funnelling traffic along East Dulwich Grove and Lordship Lane as the council is trying to prevent east west travel through Dulwich and it will get even worse when they close Townley, Burbage, Turney and the north/south route through Dulwich Village with East Dulwich taking the brunt of it.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > thebestnameshavegone Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Spartacus Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > The good thing about this change of heart > from > > > Shapps is that councils will now need to > > consult > > > on changes rather than dictate to their voters > > > > > > > It may still result in the same changes > > occurring > > > but at least people will feel that they've > had > > > their input to the process. > > > > > > Do you remember when you voted for your local > > councillors? That was when you had 'input to > this > > process'. > > We are only a democracy at that point you put your > vote in the box, that's why you should vote for > someone you trust to do as they say and have a > moral compass. But hang on a minute....two years ago when we voted for our councillors there was a clearly defined process for such closures which involved a "consultation" process. As Cllr McAsh admits the council (at the behest of central government I hasten to add) are now doing things backwards - putting the closures in place and then doing the consultation...which is a bit like announcing a new prime minister and then asking for the people to vote on whether they agree with it or not - which as far as I am aware isn't used anywhere globally as part of a democratic process.... Of course, the concern for the councillors must be that an 18 month trial period takes us pretty much to the next council elections....

rachp Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't think it's accurate to portray this debate > as the privileged few living on now quieter roads > vs. everyone else. There are lots of people > (myself included) who don't live on these roads > but welcome the opportunity to get around locally > and access these streets on foot and bike because > they are safer and nicerto travel on. And I > genuinely hope that over time, there will be > enough people who think differently about local > travel because ?there are too many cars on the > road, creating too much pollition. We are all > selfish if we advocate an outcome that suits us > better, that's how this works. I think it is fair, however, to say that one of the consequences of the closures in Dulwich Village in particular is that they are displacing a lot of traffic away from some of the least populated parts of the area and are causing congestion and additional pollution on roads that pass through some of the most densely populated parts of the area.

Turning right at The Harvester from Lordship Lane onto the A205 is like a February Monday 7.45 morning school drop off time with traffic queuing from near Upland Road. And that was at about 3pm this afternoon. The traffic on the A205 coming towards the Harvester was queuing beyond the lights at the college. We were dropping one of our children for a play date with a family who live near the college and they were very supportive of the council's plans to restrict traffic but said that they, and other residents who had been personally canvassed by Margy Newens, now feel they are going too far with this second wave of closures and are particularly concerned about the DV timed closures and the fact that they are starting to feel a bit cutoff and are worried about the increase in traffic. As my wife so beautifully put it..."that's the problem with this council, they dangle the carrot, you take a bite and then they smack you round the back of your head with a suede".

AylwardS Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Traffic in the area seems worse but schools have > just returned and traffic and public transport is > always quieter during school holidays so yes the > permeable barriers have probably had some impact > but won?t be responsible for everything we are > seeing. > > Also it?s only day two - I saw three cars indicate > to turn into the roads and then change their > minds. I saw another three try to cut through > Melbourne Grove / Elsie Road from EDG only to turn > around and come back out further back in the queue > of traffic than they were. > > How many of those cars didn?t need to be used on > that journey? Yes there are some who need to > travel by car or times a car is needed but there > are also journeys that could be walked / cycled. > Maybe those people will leave their cars at home > so those that need to drive can complete their > journey in a more reasonable time. It?s going to > take time for people to change the habits of a > lifetime of taking the car to Lordship Lane to > walking for 15 minutes. > > We like Venice and travel often but it took us by > surprise to not call a taxi or going shopping > without the car, now we plan where we stay so the > route has the least bridges to carry our suitcases > over. We understand why the flats we rent have > shopping trolleys and the supermarkets have places > for you to leave them. > > It won?t happen overnight but people might cut > back the amount of driving they do. 10%. That's all these schemes give you as a maximum. 10% car use reduction and that's probably summer figures before the days draw in and the weather turns inclement - and remember there's a good 6 months of that staring at us around the corner. How long will it take to "settle down". It's been over two months since the original DV closures went in and there has been no sign of things settling in - the traffic was as bad as ever and is now worse since the schools have gone back. The council's solution? Chase the displacement and close off Dulwich Village completely during certain times of the day.# 10% - is it worth the negative impacts elsewhere?

Cyclemonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Do a lot of people drive to Melbourne Grove to > visit the shops there? I would assume most people > walk. Well by the tone of the petition set up by the owner of Therapy on Melbourne Grove one suspects not. What you have to realise is that the businesses on Melbourne Grove are not high footfall businesses - their catchment area for customers tends to be much wider and so they rely on people travelling from across the area. Notice how along Melbourne Grove there have always been parking bays that allow, if I am not mistaken 30 minutes or one hour parking outside the shops - which suggests at some point the council acknowledged that these businesses needed parking spaces for their customers. Which, of course, would suggest that many of their customers use cars to get there. Perhaps pop down to Melbourne Grove and ask some of them? Rahrahrah - what makes you think the businesses will do better - and please do not quote that flawed council stat that people spend 40% more when they walk or cycle propaganda the council amplified during the CPZ consultation? Melbourne Grove has always been a bit of an outlier for shops in the area due to the lack of footfall so I can't see how this is going to help them.