Urgent: Help Reopen Closed Melbourne Grove and adjacent roads

[ed26]

@Rockets - where's the Like button on this forum? The last sentence of your post hits the nail on the head.

[KidKruger]

@James Barber: "so many are so adamant nothing should or can change". Spoiled your post there, sir.

Crystal Palace Road is now a considerable mess through large parts of the day, worse than I've ever known it in 30yrs.

Coincidence ?

No.

Drivers are understandably intent on finding other routes, because closed roads have converted the main arteries into mere traffic queues.

The belligerent nature of these changes tells us a lot about the decision makers' capabilities/limitations.

[tiddles]

Good article in Southwark news about the impact on businesses - it?s a real concern that independent businesses may go to the walL due to the council?s inability to engage or anticipate the results of their actions. They seem to be Utterly myopic where everyone eLse can spot the bloody obvious.

[peckhamside]

I WILL NOT BE SIGNING

As a cyclist I support these road closures. As do most cyclists I know. Traffic is terrible lately, but that is because too many people are making short journeys, such as taking children to school when they could walk.

If people chose to sit in the car for hours rather than walk, that is their choice. And surely if people want to go to a business they go there? You can drive to M.G. just from the other end of the road?

[slarti b]

peckhamside Wrote:

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

"> I WILL NOT BE SIGNING As a cyclist I support these road closures. As do most cyclists I know."

Up to you, but I am a cyclist and am opposed to these changes becuase they do not solve the problem, only move it elsewhere. A knee jerk reaction, using the excuse of Covid, which makes things worse for many people. Many of my friends are cyclists and have the same view.

">Traffic is terrible lately, but that is because too many people are making short journey"

Not true in Dulwich. Much of teh traffic is through traffic or other traffic, delviveries, builders etc which cannot move to bikes. The traffic is terrible becuase the coucnil has closed roads and junctions and displaced traffic onto the few remaining though routes.

[tiddles]

Also can hey have removed several customer parking spaces in Melbourne Grove

[Rockets]

peckhamside Wrote:

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

> I WILL NOT BE SIGNING

> As a cyclist I support these road closures. As do

> most cyclists I know. Traffic is terrible lately,

> but that is because too many people are making

> short journeys, such as taking children to school

> when they could walk.

> If people chose to sit in the car for hours rather

> than walk, that is their choice. And surely if

> people want to go to a business they go there?

> You can drive to M.G. just from the other end of

> the road?

If people are sitting in cars for hours does that not suggest their journey's are too long to be done on foot or on a bike?

Once again the pro-closure lobby views the world only from their personal purview "If I can do it why can't everyone else"!

There are a lot of cyclists who are now turning to oppose these closures as they realise they are doing far more harm than good.

[FairTgirl]

tiddles Wrote:

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

> Also can hey have removed several customer parking

> spaces in Melbourne Grove

Yes it is really important to note that as part of the road closures more than 1 /3 of customer parking has also been removed, thanks to CPZ M Grove and Grove Vale now have the only paid for customer parking in area, and as they are located so close to the school and health centre what few spaces there are also being used by key workers, which they are entitled to, but with hardly any spaces left, the business effectively have no parking left for customers that do need it and can't walk/cycle.

One business has mostly elderly customers.

There are alot of elderly and mobility challenged who need to drive to the pharmacy and other services on this road. Handy men/locksmiths need to drive and park at the locksmiths, High Vibe has alot of customers with mobility issues, as will a new Physiotherapists. It might sound frivolous but people rarely want to get on a bike or get tan, nails or hair wet in rain after spending considerable money.

They are all losing customers to different business that are now easier to get to and park at.

Let's not forget they got zero say in any of this.

[northernmonkey]

The parking outside the businesses being used by those with key worker permits is an issue - wonder if its worth having a meeting with the school to see if you could come to an informal agreement that where possible staff park on either the permit bays on Melbourne or on the bays on Trossachs / Tabert and Glengarry (as nearer to the other entrance if no bays available on Melbourne?, maybe a similar conversation with the hospital though wouldn't their staff use their car park?

there are still disabled bays outside the pharmacy and i don't think that any general use bays have been removed from that stretch

FairTgirl Wrote:

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

> tiddles Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Also can hey have removed several customer

> parking

> > spaces in Melbourne Grove

>

> Yes it is really important to note that as part of

> the road closures more than 1 /3 of customer

> parking has also been removed, thanks to CPZ M

> Grove and Grove Vale now have the only paid for

> customer parking in area, and as they are located

> so close to the school and health centre what few

> spaces there are also being used by key workers,

> which they are entitled to, but with hardly any

> spaces left, the business effectively have no

> parking left for customers that do need it and

> can't walk/cycle.

>

> One business has mostly elderly customers.

>

> There are alot of elderly and mobility challenged

> who need to drive to the pharmacy and other

> services on this road. Handy men/locksmiths need

> to drive and park at the locksmiths, High Vibe has

> alot of customers with mobility issues, as will a

> new Physiotherapists. It might sound frivolous but

> people rarely want to get on a bike or get tan,

> nails or hair wet in rain after spending

> considerable money.

>

> They are all losing customers to different

> business that are now easier to get to and park

> at.

>

> Let's not forget they got zero say in any of this.

[cwjlawrence]

Hi All,

I'm not going to try and convince anyone of my views of why the road closures are a positive thing (it does appear that most peoples' minds are rather fixed either pro or con) and I can also completely see the argument that they are not good. Both arguments are compelling and it's unlikely that too many people will move from their points of view.

Hence it does seem a bit of a waste of time trying to convince people. So 2 points, if I may:

I do strongly believe that the current volume of car usage is far too much in our city and there does seem to be a general consensus to that point on this thread. Away from just the pollution and the space they take up, driving 1500kg of car to move 70kg of person doesn't seem too intelligent a thing to do in built up areas.

Secondly, cars are great way of getting around, you can sit comfortably in your own space, listening to the music/radio that you want, with no physical effort required and ultimately a car will take from where you want to go from to where you want to go. The car is a really great way to get around (excepting the impact on the environment in the broader sense of the word) and definitely the path of least resistance - I can't think of another method that is "easier" for an individual.

So, with these 2 statements, how do you stop/reduce people driving in our cities?

1. Increase car taxes (e.g. Congestion charge, increase car tax, increase cost of petrol)

2. Reduce available parking so as to make it far more of a hassle

3. Introduce significant parking charges

3. Only allow specific cars on specific days (cf Singapore)

4. Close / block roads to make other forms of transport the preferred option

5. Change road usage away from priortising cars - e.g. more cycle lanes, more bus lanes

6. Improve public transport so it is just easier not to drive

7. Rely on peoples' good will to stop driving.

8. +++

I'm sure that there are a lot of other additional ways that could be used. So, why don't we have a positive discussion on what would be the better way to do this rather than us all restating our positions on why road closures are either right or wrong?

What are peoples' views? Are there too many cars and car journeys? And if so, what would be the best way to reduce both the number of cars and journeys?

[dougiefreeman]

If you read further back in the thread you will find multiple suggestions and alternatives.

Contrary to popular belief, the ?pro removal of the planters? people are not just whinging moaners who want to go back to driving everywhere. There has been a lot of discussion already - as has been stated we are all in agreement that vehicle useage needs drastically reducing.

However, The benefits need to be felt by all and not just the wealthy few streets enjoying the closures. Any negative impact needs to be fairly distributed amongst all residents / areas.

And the views of all residents (not just cyclists) needs to be heard.

[Dulwichgirl82]

I totally agree we need to reduce some car journeys, I think both sides agree on this, if only this.

I do think improving public transport is important (difficult now clearly) and making it preferable over short car journeys. Parking restrictions can help with this.

I think road closures should be more restructuring, I don't honestly think what?s been done is enough of a deterrent to drivers, I speak for the east dulwich end mostly as that?s what I see. It adds 5-10

Minutes to a journey, and increases distance travelled and time spent in idling traffic. Paradoxically I think this potentially increases pollution overall as you don?t loose much traffic it?s just in a different place going further and more slowly.

If for example (just conjecture) the edg LL junction was bus only,I think this would actually be better as that?s less time travelled and allow the buses to avoid getting stuck in traffic making them more attractive. Also protecting the roads further down, the nursery park etc.

Also I think it?s very important to consider the equality aspect of this, it looks rather bad if you look at the roads closed versus the roads diverted to from a socioeconomic status point of view. Socioeconomic status is one of the major determinants of health and air quality is a factor in this, and it seems this is worsening things for the already more disadvantaged. As an aside as I?ve mentioned above EDG has a lot of communal

Assets which are obviously suffering due to this closure.

cwjlawrence Wrote:

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

> Hi All,

> I'm not going to try and convince anyone of my

> views of why the road closures are a positive

> thing (it does appear that most peoples' minds are

> rather fixed either pro or con) and I can also

> completely see the argument that they are not

> good. Both arguments are compelling and it's

> unlikely that too many people will move from their

> points of view.

>

> Hence it does seem a bit of a waste of time trying

> to convince people. So 2 points, if I may:

>

> I do strongly believe that the current volume of

> car usage is far too much in our city and there

> does seem to be a general consensus to that point

> on this thread. Away from just the pollution and

> the space they take up, driving 1500kg of car to

> move 70kg of person doesn't seem too intelligent a

> thing to do in built up areas.

>

> Secondly, cars are great way of getting around,

> you can sit comfortably in your own space,

> listening to the music/radio that you want, with

> no physical effort required and ultimately a car

> will take from where you want to go from to where

> you want to go. The car is a really great way to

> get around (excepting the impact on the

> environment in the broader sense of the word) and

> definitely the path of least resistance - I can't

> think of another method that is "easier" for an

> individual.

>

> So, with these 2 statements, how do you

> stop/reduce people driving in our cities?

> 1. Increase car taxes (e.g. Congestion charge,

> increase car tax, increase cost of petrol)

> 2. Reduce available parking so as to make it far

> more of a hassle

> 3. Introduce significant parking charges

> 3. Only allow specific cars on specific days (cf

> Singapore)

> 4. Close / block roads to make other forms of

> transport the preferred option

> 5. Change road usage away from priortising cars -

> e.g. more cycle lanes, more bus lanes

> 6. Improve public transport so it is just easier

> not to drive

> 7. Rely on peoples' good will to stop driving.

> 8. +++

>

> I'm sure that there are a lot of other additional

> ways that could be used. So, why don't we have a

> positive discussion on what would be the better

> way to do this rather than us all restating our

> positions on why road closures are either right or

> wrong?

>

> What are peoples' views? Are there too many cars

> and car journeys? And if so, what would be the

> best way to reduce both the number of cars and

> journeys?

[cwjlawrence]

Hi Dulwichgirl,

I think you make some really great points here. I've only been in ED for about 15 years, so a relative "blow-in" as Louisa used to call us :-).

I've always dreamt of Lordship Lane being traffic free - it seems so perverse that having somewhere that purposefully attracts pedestrians is somewhere with terrible pollution. And I think it's always been that way - I used to get very angry pushing my children in their buggies many years ago when they were at the same height as the car exhaust fumes. My theoretical solution was to make LL one way with cars coming back along CPR which I'm sure would not have too popular with the residents of Crystal Palace Road!

I completely agree on your points of equality - we should be trying to work out how to improve air quality for everyone and of course not just the lucky few. This is why personally I would like to see a significant reduction in car journeys - wherever the pollution happens it is still pollution.

My personal preference would be to increase the tax on car usage, either through a congestion charge or an increase in car tax and petrol. But of course, this would raise the objection that it's unequal insofar as if you're rich then you'll be able to afford the increased taxes.

@Dougiefreeman - I'm certainly not referring to you as a "whinging moaner" and I don't agree that only the view of cyclists has been heard. I know cyclists can come across as holier than thou - but actually what a great way to get around in a city. No pollution, don't take up much room and get people fit and healthy. What's not to like?! :-)

[dougiefreeman]

Well that's all well and good if you physically are able to use a bicycle.

For me, when I can get around on foot / pt / scooter etc I do. But my work requires a vehicle, there's no way around it. Whilst short un-necessary journeys must be curbed, higher taxes will just penalise the people who actually need a vehicle. And generally it follows that the majority of those who actually need a vehicle for work (or just for getting around) are not usually at the higher end of the earning spectrum. Tradesmen, delivery drivers - and to use my own profession musicians and events people.

As has been outlined on here in multiple threads (and evidence-backed) cycling is not the holy grail solution to London-wide reduction in pollution. Public transport is the main thing that will solve the problem and then investment in low-polluting vehicles (including incentivising purchasing green vehicles).

Sure cycling (and scooting and walking etc) needs to be invested in to make it safer for people to do - but it's never going to provide the sort of scale of change that we actually need to make the necessary difference in the fight against climate change because if people need to get in a car to make their journey, (as there's no viable alternative) then they will. Even if they are absolutely rinsed financially by local councils / TFL etc for the privilege.

If you have any kind of stuff that you need to take on a journey - heavy bag, instrument, case, equipment or whatever - but you don't have a train station or a reliable bus service nearby, then what choice do you have but to get in your car? That sort of situation does not just apply to long journeys. And a bicycle is not going to provide a solution to problems like that.

A few new local bus routes might...

[Spartacus]

Two separate points

The improvement in public transport, as mentioned above, is the real solution but it's possible that the cost is too high so the approach is go for the low cost option of penalising car drivers and make them walk and cycle. Very shortsighted IMHO.

Second point, has anyone noticed the increased heavy traffic using side roads coming off Lordship Lane where people are trying to bypass the closure or finding other routes to get to their destination ?

[tiddles]

The problem is compounded by the current situation- we are reluctant to use public transport at present due to health risks - but also as most buses are not moving due to gridlock caused by planters.

[Nigello]

I?ve just seen lots of traffic and the reason was school closing time. That?s down to individuals choosing, not needing, to travel short distances by car. It?s that simple.

[Rockets]

Nigello Wrote:

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

> I?ve just seen lots of traffic and the reason was

> school closing time. That?s down to individuals

> choosing, not needing, to travel short distances

> by car. It?s that simple.

But that doesn't explain the current tailback from the Grove Tavern all the way back to the Library southbound on the top end of Lordship Lane which has become a daily occurrence since the closures went in. It never used to be like that and that's not school traffic.

A lot of the people waiting in that queue are now diving down the backstreets to try and cut the corner via Underhill.

Is the solution to just block all those roads too? At some point the council has to sit up and take notice and realise the closures have been an absolute disaster.

[Nigello]

The solution is to drive less especially at traditionally busy times. (With no car for twenty years I?m halo-polishing a little but I?m not part of the problem and that prevents any charge of hypocrisy when I ask for people to use their vehicles less.)

[dougiefreeman]

Nigello Wrote:

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

> That?s down to individuals

> choosing, not needing, to travel short distances

> by car. It?s that simple.

Do you know this for a fact? If so, please cite source(s) of your evidence.

[dougiefreeman]

Nigello Wrote:

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

> The solution is to drive less especially at

> traditionally busy times. (With no car for twenty

> years I?m halo-polishing a little but I?m not part

> of the problem and that prevents any charge of

> hypocrisy when I ask for people to use their

> vehicles less.)

Translation:

I don't drive so I don't see why anybody else needs to.

Might as well stick your fingers in your ears and sing "Nah Nah Nah Nah I'm not listening"

[Dulwichgirl82]

I don?t really get your point. Everyone seems to agree car use needs to be less. However As these measures have just shifted the traffic onto less affluent roads, so penalising some and benefiting others who both may or may not be drivers so it?s not drivers who are automatically getting penalised here.

Ironically those on melbourne grove, Derwent and Elsie now have to use the over burdened waylay dulwich grove for any car access also.

Nigello Wrote:

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

> The solution is to drive less especially at

> traditionally busy times. (With no car for twenty

> years I?m halo-polishing a little but I?m not part

> of the problem and that prevents any charge of

> hypocrisy when I ask for people to use their

> vehicles less.)

[Dulwichgirl82]

Agree lordship lane is a big issue, it?s always had too much traffic I agree but since the closures the bit around the Edg junction and goose green is awful. I don?t really go thee now as my kids are also exhaust height. Something to protect this would be good also.

cwjlawrence Wrote:

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

> Hi Dulwichgirl,

> I think you make some really great points here.

> I've only been in ED for about 15 years, so a

> relative "@#$%&" as Louisa used to call us :-).

>

> I've always dreamt of Lordship Lane being traffic

> free - it seems so perverse that having somewhere

> that purposefully attracts pedestrians is

> somewhere with terrible pollution. And I think

> it's always been that way - I used to get very

> angry pushing my children in their buggies many

> years ago when they were at the same height as the

> car exhaust fumes. My theoretical solution was to

> make LL one way with cars coming back along CPR

> which I'm sure would not have too popular with the

> residents of Crystal Palace Road!

>

> I completely agree on your points of equality - we

> should be trying to work out how to improve air

> quality for everyone and of course not just the

> lucky few. This is why personally I would like to

> see a significant reduction in car journeys -

> wherever the pollution happens it is still

> pollution.

>

> My personal preference would be to increase the

> tax on car usage, either through a congestion

> charge or an increase in car tax and petrol. But

> of course, this would raise the objection that

> it's unequal insofar as if you're rich then you'll

> be able to afford the increased taxes.

>

> @Dougiefreeman - I'm certainly not referring to

> you as a "whinging moaner" and I don't agree that

> only the view of cyclists has been heard. I know

> cyclists can come across as holier than thou - but

> actually what a great way to get around in a city.

> No pollution, don't take up much room and get

> people fit and healthy. What's not to like?! :-)

[James Barber]

Number is issues.

In real terms driving has never been cheaper.

Installation of the CPZ, LTN planters and COVID at broadly the same time has made this more painful to digest than it needed to be.

COVID. Traffic levels are reported as now higher across London than before COVID. Lots I guess avoiding public transport. So even if nothing was done more congestion was more likely.

All day CPZ aimed at commuter parking should have been a PPA operating for small part of the day once commuters had started to return to the area. Study several years ago showed 22% of our local shops custom came by car but in the current climate that 22% could be make or break for local businesses.

Closing roads seems to be the only thing that changes driver behaviour. But the consultation on this feels incomplete so bound to get lots of opposition. So I welcome the LTN idea. Locally we have a long history of such closures making the area better. But they take considerable time before they become truly accepted e.g. Friern Road, Gilkes Crescent, Oakhurst Grove, etc. But concerned about how residents have been engaged.

But my reflection is relying on people driving to do the decent thing and not rat run, except when essential, has never worked - and technology is making it ever more unlikely to work.

I would personally prefer see more often closures with camera enforcement to non Southwark residents to stop rat running. Often quoted ot me that half of Southwark traffic start and ends journey outside Southwark so huge proportion of rat running down streets never designed for such traffic levels.

[Rockets]

Nigello Wrote:

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

> The solution is to drive less especially at

> traditionally busy times. (With no car for twenty

> years I?m halo-polishing a little but I?m not part

> of the problem and that prevents any charge of

> hypocrisy when I ask for people to use their

> vehicles less.)

And I presume then that you never use any sort of delivery service that requires a vehicle to deliver things to you?