Urgent: Help Reopen Closed Melbourne Grove and adjacent roads

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

"Makes you wonder if these surveys are worth the effort and are the truth."

Admits to not knowing how the data is produced, says it's useless anyway because he's seen expensive cars in poor neighbourhoods. Why would it ever be worth responding?

[slarti b]

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

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

> An 11% reduction in car usage in one fell swoop would be a huge achievement. It just goes to show

> how many of those journeys weren't critical.

The figure of 11% evaporation comes from a 20 year old study using highly subjective data, dubious methodology and some very, very dodgy statistics. Even the authors admit some of their working data (eg evaporation of 149%) was incorrect and\or unreliable.

But even taking their dodgy figures as correct, that still leaves 89% of traffic to be displaced. Where will it go?

[Rockets]

slarti b Wrote:

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

> Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

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

> -----

> > An 11% reduction in car usage in one fell swoop

> would be a huge achievement. It just goes to show

> > how many of those journeys weren't critical.

>

> The figure of 11% evaporation comes from a 20 year

> old study using highly subjective data, dubious

> methodology and some very, very dodgy statistics.

> Even the authors admit some of their working data

> (eg evaporation of 149%) was incorrect and\or

> unreliable.

>

> But even taking their dodgy figures as correct,

> that still leaves 89% of traffic to be displaced.

> Where will it go?

I have noticed that the council has, retrospectively, put more monitoring in place around Dulwich. It will be interesting to see what conclusions they come to - one hopes they have monitoring data from before the road closures were put in place so they can make a proper comparison.....we know they only had monitoring added to the closed roads around DV and weren't monitoring the displacement roads from the start.

[micromacromonkey]

I have just driven down Grove Vale for the first time since these restrictions were put in place, from Quorn road right down to the harvester junction. Traffic is very slow and it was a frustrating experience.

And that's great, because my journey was totally unnecessary (one household member was in a hurry thought it would be quicker to drive than cycle). Hopefully all the other people in the traffic will feel the same way and quit labouring under the misapprehension that they have a right to be able to drive their car unimpeded wherever they like.

[ed_pete]

> I have noticed that the council has,

> retrospectively, put more monitoring in place

> around Dulwich. It will be interesting to see what

> conclusions they come to - one hopes they have

> monitoring data from before the road closures were

> put in place so they can make a proper

> comparison.....we know they only had monitoring

> added to the closed roads around DV and weren't

> monitoring the displacement roads from the start.

I very much doubt the council will have monitoring data from a comparable period, if at all. I strongly suspect that whatever data is collected will be spun to justify the changes.

[AlexandHelenC]

I don?t understand the fundamental purpose of this scheme. If the answer is to close the roads, what is the question? The roads are still open, albeit quieter, so the scheme doesn?t create any more space to walk on (was lack of space for pedestrians even a problem in the first place??).

The impact of the displaced traffic is dramatic. I live on Oxonian Street and we?ve seen a huge increase in cars cutting through, frequently speeding in the wrong direction on the one way street. The dramatic increase in congestion and therefore pollution from the displaced traffic is absolutely evident and has made Lordship Lane unpleasant to walk along. I think I saw that they?re planning to keep this in place for up to 18 months! It?s truly shocking.

[Dulwichgirl82]

Hoya I?ve sent you a pm but not sure if the alerts are coming through!

AlexandHelenC Wrote:

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

> I don?t understand the fundamental purpose of this

> scheme. If the answer is to close the roads, what

> is the question? The roads are still open, albeit

> quieter, so the scheme doesn?t create any more

> space to walk on (was lack of space for

> pedestrians even a problem in the first place??).

>

>

> The impact of the displaced traffic is dramatic. I

> live on Oxonian Street and we?ve seen a huge

> increase in cars cutting through, frequently

> speeding in the wrong direction on the one way

> street. The dramatic increase in congestion and

> therefore pollution from the displaced traffic is

> absolutely evident and has made Lordship Lane

> unpleasant to walk along. I think I saw that

> they?re planning to keep this in place for up to

> 18 months! It?s truly shocking.

[Dulres3]

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.

Short of tracking the entire populations movements, there?s no way to differentiate between a journey of 2k and a journey of 15k to an area poorly served by public transport. Closing roads increases journey times for everyone regardless of the intent, necessity or length of journey.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

"Short of tracking the entire populations movements, there?s no way to differentiate between a journey of 2k and a journey of 15k to an area poorly served by public transport."

That's not true - but no-one ever reads the methodology for data gathering and traffic analysis which, shocker, is actually quite developed and very complicated. They just slag off the "data" because they don't like the conclusion or don't understand it.

[Rockets]

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

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

> "Short of tracking the entire populations

> movements, there?s no way to differentiate between

> a journey of 2k and a journey of 15k to an area

> poorly served by public transport."

>

> That's not true - but no-one ever reads the

> methodology for data gathering and traffic

> analysis which, shocker, is actually quite

> developed and very complicated. They just slag off

> the "data" because they don't like the conclusion

> or don't understand it.

Take a look at the "data" gathered for the OHS consultation on the DV closures (before Covid); the lack of granularity in the data is shocking. The council could tell you how many cars passed through the junction every day but they had no idea where they went beyond the junctions in the village - which is vital to determining the likely impacts of closing said roads. If those journeys were all under 1 mile then yes, the impact of the closure could be positive. If the journeys were 3 miles or more then the likely impact would be negative on surrounding roads as displaced traffic tried to find another route.

But the council had no clue and I suspect they know but don't want to hear the answer as it would mean people would have questioned the sense in doing it.

[exdulwicher]

Short of tracking the entire populations movements, there?s no way to differentiate between a journey of 2k and a journey of 15k to an area poorly served by public transport.

There are countless books, technical journals, websites and videos that describe how traffic is modelled, how flow rates are calculated, how journey types are differentiated, how multi-modal travel is accommodated, the methodology behind it, the data gathering processes...

Some of it is incredibly technical - even Wikipedia has some quite in-depth mathematical speak - but there's plenty of introductory information there too. All easily available to search for online.

You can read TfL's Modelling Guidelines here, it's only 184 pages. Bit of light bedtime reading...

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/traffic-modelling-guidelines.pdf

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

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.

[hpsaucey]

This! 👍

micromacromonkey Wrote:

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

> I have just driven down Grove Vale for the first

> time since these restrictions were put in place,

> from Quorn road right down to the harvester

> junction. Traffic is very slow and it was a

> frustrating experience.

>

> And that's great, because my journey was totally

> unnecessary (one household member was in a hurry

> thought it would be quicker to drive than cycle).

> Hopefully all the other people in the traffic will

> feel the same way and quit labouring under the

> misapprehension that they have a right to be able

> to drive their car unimpeded wherever they like.

[macutd]

nice to have all that extra pollution of that heavy traffic, NOT

[first mate]

And for anyone who has to make an urgent, necessary trip by car...they must be made to suffer too?

Is there a way for emergency services to circumvent these jams?

hpsaucey Wrote:

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

> This! 👍

>

> micromacromonkey Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I have just driven down Grove Vale for the

> first

> > time since these restrictions were put in

> place,

> > from Quorn road right down to the harvester

> > junction. Traffic is very slow and it was a

> > frustrating experience.

> >

> > And that's great, because my journey was

> totally

> > unnecessary (one household member was in a

> hurry

> > thought it would be quicker to drive than

> cycle).

> > Hopefully all the other people in the traffic

> will

> > feel the same way and quit labouring under the

> > misapprehension that they have a right to be

> able

> > to drive their car unimpeded wherever they like.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

Everyone thinks their own journey is urgent and necessary. London is overrun with people making urgent and necessary car journeys. That's the whole problem. If people only really drove when it was urgent and necessary to do so, we wouldn't need any of this shit in the first place.

[first mate]

Yet, some people will have urgent, necessary journeys. You?re view seems to be they should just accept this? What about emergency services?

[Monkey]

Emergency services wouldn?t be impaired if people didn?t build their lives around their cars.

[first mate]

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?

[Monkey]

People have been sacrificed due to underfunding of the nhs, which has caused less bleeting on this forum than the road closures. If people are so concerned about emergency services, they should get out of their cars. Driving and polluting are not a right.

I?m extremely frustrated by how shit public transport is in South London and had resorted to driving part of my way to work. This is no longer possible so I got on my bike. Guess what? My journey has never been faster and I don?t stand in the way of emergency services.

[TheCropolite]

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?

Do you have any data to show the emergency service response times are affected by this? I can guarantee you the only thing disrupting their response times on the road and the masses of people driving for absolutely no good reason.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

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.

[stecoward101]

@donkennelhillbilly - Do most cars not inc start/stop tech to ensure there is less population? Additionally the whole point is to reduce the number of cars.

[first mate]

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.

[JonnoJ]

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.