More ?Permeable Barriers?

[Rockets]

andrewc Wrote:

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

> Studies indicate that on average, over-all traffic

> reduces by 11% (with a road closure). Is there any

> evidence that this drop in car use would not be a

> benefit to all local streets in terms of air

> quality?

If at best we can hope for is a 11% reduction then the 89% displacement is catastrophic for the surrounding roads. Therein lies the issue with these plans - the numbers just don't add up. Take the DV closure, when you remove the 11% it leaves thousands of cars finding alternative routes which is why there is traffic chaos in surrounding areas.

Phase 2 of the council's plans is merely chasing the displacement and trying to move it further away from the original closures to massage the stats to prove it is a success.

It's not, it's a house of cards that our councillors are forcing to crash to the ground.

It's why Bromley are taking legal action against Croydon as Croydon's closures are creating havoc on some of Bromley's roads.

Take a read of this from One Dulwich (LTNs the controversy) to help explain why some of the LTNs that are heralded as a success may not be quite what they seem..

https://www.onedulwich.uk/news

[Zig-Zag]

To save me looking it up, can anyone tell me which political party run those Councils which did the semi structured interviews. I know Southwark obviously! To avoid bias there should be a mix.

[Penguin68]

To save me looking it up, can anyone tell me which political party run those Councils which did the semi structured interviews

I used to work in, well commission, market research. When we actually wanted to find stuff out, not prove a point. It was very difficult to devise questions which did not lead responses - most political research commissioned by parties - I am generalising but not much - is designed to provide ammunition to sell a particular (political) idea - it is not about striving for truth. You only have to read the questionnaires created for Southwark to realise that. [Which is why at election times, parties, who then actually do need to know which way the wind blows, commission private research which is regularly not published.]

My base-line in interpreting any published research results is to ask - 'who benefits?'. It means that research undertaken for political entities which is then published should be treated with hundredweights of salt.

[JohnL]

The consultation results of Peckham Town Centre resulted in retaining and segregating a cycle lane.

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/peckham-town-centre/

I think the Cycle lobby is pretty good at getting it's vote out.

[rupert james]

That is probably not to difficult as most ordinary people going about their normal lives to survive have no idea that these consultations ever take place.

So rallying the zealots and getting them to vote no matter how few impresses the powers that be to pass whatever if it coincides with their plans as what people want.

This is plain if you ever go to a local community meeting.

[slarti b]

andrewc Wrote:

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

> Here is a recent study on the effect of school street closures.

> >

> https://www.napier.ac.uk/about-us/news/school-street-closures

Thanks for the link. In terms of a school street or LTN or I was interested by the use of techniques such as timed term time restrictions, retractable bollards and ANPR monitoring with permits for residents. All of these have been proposed by One Dulwich but arbitrarily dismissed by our local councillors as impossible.

However the study is not really relevant to the issue of displaced traffic and so called evaporation is it? For that figure of 11% you are still relying on a 20 year old study, using examples even older, which is very subjective and uses some very dubious statistics. I repeat my questions to you

- was the study on traffic evaporation by Goodwin et al ever peer reviewed?

- which roads are the COuncillors tryinging to displace traffic onto with their proposed measures.

[James Barber]

Couldn't agree more with you rupert james. But the degree that Southwark Council consultants is something ward Councillors have huge influence over.

If a letter hasn't been posted to every resident, with street notices, then the ward Councillors haven't been thorough in directing the council consultation. Certainly what my lot did when representing the area.

I believe the proposals are due to the Melbourne Grove (north) section being an extremely busy through route for vehicles but a pretty narrow road. This has been a longstanding problem. Slightly relieved when me and my colleagues had the no.37 bus rerouted away. But with a secondary school entrance there now that changes things. If Melbourne Grove (north) alone was closed then the 4,610 vehicles going north and south would likely divert and many would travel via Derwent Grove. Then if that was closed Elsie.

In abstract closing Derwent and Elsie due to traffic would seem odd - average daily traffic flows respectively of 863 and 747. But knowing a good proportion would of 4,610 vehicles divert down them...

The changes will be under an Experimental Traffic Management Order - so can be changed quickly with any problems identified. The junction of East dulwich Grove and Lordship Lane is a huge concern for me. I think it needs a Zebra across to continue Lordship Lane pavement and make it critically clear to drivers they have to give way.

As a minimum this should be included in the proposed and now planned changes/closures.

What do others think?

[Serena2012]

James - I agree that failing to address the problems all these closures are causing/ likely to cause for the Lordship Lane/ EDG junction is a recipe for disaster.

The reality is, that as a result of the closures that have already happened, Lordship Lane is busier than it?s ever been. This is making it hard for traffic from EDG to turn left onto Lordship Lane and vice versa, as the breaks in traffic travelling in the opposite direction that need to happen to allow them to do so are far less frequent than they were previously.

The proximity of this junction to the Goose Green roundabout is also problematic, and living nearby, I?ve already, in recent weeks witnessed the roundabout at a complete standstill more than once, simply because traffic wanting to turn from Lordship Lane onto EDG can?t do so quickly enough, and accordingly the queue formed stretches onto the roundabout.

My sense is that it will be really difficult (due to the proximity of the junction to the Goose Green roundabout) to put in a solution that meets the twin objectives of increasing pedestrian safety (which is what a zebra crossing would do and the junction is crying out for), without risking the creation of even more tailbacks that would gridlock the Goose Green roundabout.

We?re certainly getting far more queues of idling traffic on EDG wanting to make the turn onto Lordship Lane, in circumstances where I can only remember this happening once in a blue moon previously.

Closing Melbourne North; Elsie et al will no doubt make this worse. Whilst I wouldn?t be completely averse to the trialing of school street closures on all these roads, I?m concerned that the blunt instrument currently being used will result in utter chaos at what is already a dangerous junction, as well as gridlocking the roundabout. This will have negative consequences both for bus journey times and anyone needing emergency assistance.

Separately (and as an aside), my sense is that the volume of traffic on Melbourne North has decreased significantly since Melbourne South was closed (not least as most of the short cut, allowing you to leapfrog a good chunk of Lordship Lane is gone), so whilst I don?t doubt there will still be some rat runners on this stretch, I?m not convinced the 4.6K figure quoted is an accurate reflection of the traffic on Melbourne North since Melbourne South was closed. I?m not convinced therefore that the ?problem? these permeable closures sets out to resolve is quite as acute as it was previously.

[Serena2012]

James - And as one final point, as I think this is often missed in discussions about rerouting/ displacing traffic. Contrary to what Southwark appear to believe, the stretch of East Dulwich Grove running between Lordship Lane and Melbourne Grove, is in fact very narrow, and no wider than Melbourne North.

This is precisely why there are parking restrictions almost its entire length (and by that, I mean no parking at all on either side of the road). Moreover, it is so narrow in part that two sizeable vehicles, including buses, cannot pass without one stopping to let the other go by. With that in mind, and taking into account the significant issues with the Lordship Lane/ East Dulwich Grove junction, increasing traffic on this stretch of EDG is hugely problematic, as the road simply isn?t able to cope with it.

My suspicion is that the knock on impact on bus journey times will be significant.

I?m genuinely concerned that neither the Goose Green councillors nor Southwark have properly considered the implications.

[slarti b]

Serena2012 Wrote:

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

> I?m genuinely concerned that neither the Goose Green councillors nor Southwark have properly

> considered the implications.

One of the objectives of the OHS proposals was to move traffic from "residential strees" onto "Main Roads" and the proposed Covid measures are continuing with that. The Village ward councillors who are driving these changes will certainly have considered the implications, increased traffic on EDG, Lordship Lane Half Moon Lane, Croxted Road etc, but it seems they have dismissed them as not important.

I am surprised that C'llor McAsh and his colleagues haven't taken more of an interest since their ward constituents will be bearing much of the brunt of the traffic displaced from Dulwich Village and Margy Plaza.

[Serena2012]

My concern is that the next phase of the OHS (i.e. the bit that never happened) was the modelling phase which, had it been published would have allowed interested parties (on both sides of the fence) to fully understand the implications prior to implementation. Instead, they?ve jumped head first into implementation without any heed as to the likely consequences.

The closures of Melbourne North, Tintagel, Elsie and Derwent (brought about by the Goose Green councillors, who commissioned their own hugely biased survey, targeted only at the residents of the roads standing to benefit, without any attempt whatsoever to engage those on neighbouring streets) were not part of the OHS. As far as I am aware, in the context of the closures of these 4 specific roads, there has been no modelling whatsoever.

I am told by councillor McAsh that their assumption is that the combined impact (of all closures irrespective of location) on EDG would ?not be significant? (whatever that may mean). I have literally no idea what evidence he has to back this up, as perhaps unsurprisingly, he has not been forthcoming in sharing this.

My own first hand evidence of tailbacks and idling traffic in circumstances where this did not happen previously; a junction with Lordship Lane that is utterly saturated, and even more dangerous than it was previously, as well as gridlock on the Goose Green roundabout would suggest to the contrary, but it appears that because I happen to live on a ?main? road, my views do not matter one jot!

[Rockets]

Cllr McAsh is more than aware of the negative impact these closures are having on the majority of his constituents - remember he was out canvassing door to door on Melbourne Grove lobbying for support for the Melbourne Grove closures on the basis of traffic displacement from the Dulwich Village closures.

As many on here predicted the Lordship Lane and East Dulwich Grove junction is now more dangerous than ever for pedestrians and the pollution levels on Lordship Lane are rocketing and many have been asking whether he is concerned about this and yet we have heard nothing.

There seems to be zero accountability for the changes he lobbied for, an unfortunate political weakness amongst politicians nowadays.

[Metallic]

Makes you wonder about the conversations between Goose Green councillors and Village Ward councillors, do they ever talk to each other?

Seemingly not. Because wherever you go in Area B and C, and of course A, it seems as if a huge majority of residents, rate paying, long standing in the area, are being made to sacrifice quality of life for a minority of locals.

[Serena2012]

Edited as I stand corrected in view of James Barber?s email below. To be clear, I had heard this from what I would ordinarily consider a reliable source, so I was not deliberately spreading misinformation. I was also very clear in my post that this was unsubstantiated.

[JohnL]

Serena2012 Wrote:

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

> I have heard an unsubstantiated rumour that one of

> the Goose Green councillors lives on Melbourne

> Grove, which would make an awful lot of sense, if

> that were correct. As otherwise, I cannot see why

> on earth the Goose Green councillors would be

> supportive of the OHS, which was and always has

> been a measure designed to shift the burden of air

> pollution from the leafy streets of the Village to

> the surrounding area, which includes the Goose

> Green ward.

Are people really that self interested though - I find it difficult (and rather sad) to believe. You don't become a Councillor to further your own self interest.

[James Barber]

My understanding is the Goose Green Labour Councillors live:

James Ashworth-McLintock (James McAah) - Nunhead & Queen's Road ward

Victoria Olisa - Champion Hill ward

Charlie Smith - Dulwich Hills ward

So no, none of them live on Melbourne Grove. Please don't make or relate much accusations.

[Rockets]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> My understanding is the Goose Green Labour

> Councillors live:

>

> James Ashworth-McLintock (James McAah) - Nunhead &

> Queen's Road ward

> Victoria Olisa - Champion Hill ward

> Charlie Smith - Dulwich Hills ward

>

> So no, none of them live on Melbourne Grove.

> Please don't make or relate much accusations.

James I think the poster may have been confusing the rumour with the DV councillors living on Calton Avenue or one of the roads positvely impacted by the closures.

Is that incorrect too?

[Metallic]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> James Barber Wrote:

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

> -----

> > My understanding is the Goose Green Labour

> > Councillors live:

> >

> > James Ashworth-McLintock (James McAah) - Nunhead

> &

> > Queen's Road ward

> > Victoria Olisa - Champion Hill ward

> > Charlie Smith - Dulwich Hills ward

> >

> > So no, none of them live on Melbourne Grove.

> > Please don't make or relate much accusations.

>

>

> James I think the poster may have been confusing

> the rumour with the DV councillors living on

> Calton Avenue or one of the roads positvely

> impacted by the closures.

>

> Is that incorrect too?

Yes it is. However the councillors dealing with Goose Green do not live in their ward, which is true of one of the Village Ward members.

[Abe_froeman]

Have any of our councillors visited the ward to see the impact of the recent changes?

[Spartacus]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> Have any of our councillors visited the ward to

> see the impact of the recent changes?

Abe

We've told you before stop being so damn logical

[Alec1]

Going from just off East Dulwich Grove to Sainsbury's today, normally only takes around 5 mins via car / bus, took me 20mins door to door having been stuck in traffic on EDG. How can that benefit the environment with cars sitting slowly moving down toward Lordship Lane junction? At least with side roads open traffic moves at a reasonable speed without build up. Crazy.

[Abe_froeman]

Which end of the roads have they stuck the new planters?

[Serena2012]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> Which end of the roads have they stuck the new

> planters?

The Grove Vale end. This is putting enormous pressure on the junction of EDG and Lordship Lane, resulting in a significant amount of idling traffic on the Northernmost stretch of EDG. In essence, the traffic on Lordship Lane is also very heavy, and there aren?t sufficient breaks in the traffic to allow vehicles to turn from EDG onto Lordship Lane quickly enough to prevent a build up of traffic on EDG.

[sillywoman]

This morning I travelled from East Dulwich Hospital to Bromley - a journey I've done hundreds of times over the last 25 years. There are a few routes and shortcuts I can take, most of which google-maps usually agrees with. Today for the first time ever google-maps advised me to go to central Bromley via Honor Oak, Ladywell and Catford - a massive loop to get to my destination. I can only assume this ridiculous route deviation is due to the utterly awful traffic on all the other routes caused by these facile, ill thought out and almost universally loathed road closures?

Really - who is behind this complete chaos, and what on earth are they getting from it?

[creditwheredue]

I have to drive to Orpington to work and have had to start using the A20. It?s not barriers which are the cause but road works in Downham and Bickey. It?s taking 20mins extra each way.