Urgent: Help Reopen Closed Melbourne Grove and adjacent roads

[Rockets]

micromacromonkey Wrote:

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

> ab29 Wrote:

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

> -----

> > micromacromonkey Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > first mate Wrote:

> > >

> >

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

>

> >

> > > -----

> > > >

> > >

> >

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

>

> >

> > >

> > > > ay.aspx?id=500000049

> > > >

> > > > 2069 now

> > >

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

> > the

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

> > > fundamental human right.

> >

> >

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

> > licence. I signed the petition because I think

> it

> > is not fair to treat people living on the

> streets

> > that take the extra traffic now with

> significantly

> > more noise and pollution - do you?

>

> That would not be a valid reason to sign the

> petition though. This whole thing is being done as

> a nudge tactic to get people out of their cars.

> For this to happen, the situation has to be

> annoying enough for people to decide to take an

> alternative form of transport instead, or perhaps

> travel at a different time (or just not make the

> journey at all if it's not necessary). That's the

> phase we're in now. Temporarily raised pollution

> on some streets is 'collateral damage' I guess,

> although of course it's not a welcome situation.

>

> The BEST way to achieve the stated aim would be to

> apply statutory restrictions such as are currently

> applied in Mexico City, and have also been applied

> in Paris (based on pollution levels I think). In

> this model you get to drive your car every other

> day. I imagine that the naysayers here would be

> horrified by this option also.

A nudge tactic that in the absolute best-case scenario delivers an 11% drop in car use - but you have to add the caveat that the 11% drop was achieved in the non-Covid world when public transport was a viable alternative. But let's be generous and say an 11% drop - 7,000 cars a day used the DV junction before the closures - so it doesn't take a mathematical genius to work out why there is so much more congestion on the displacement roads. Now throw in the cars that used Melbourne Grove and then prepare yourself for the timed closures of Townley and the closures of Burbage etc.

Do you see the problem here? The nudge tactic is fundamentally flawed if all you can get is 11% and even more flawed when you carpet-bomb the closures on a whole area - remember the 11% stats were taken from trials that were done in isolation.

So what you're saying to those people who live on, get educated on or use the displacement roads is that you're "collateral damage" - take one for the team, it'll settle down at some point....we hope....

[micromacromonkey]

11%? That's a pretty impressive result for any intervention like this. Crack on.

And those who live on the currently (extra) polluted streets have the most to gain from all this, so yes they need to sit tight and wait for it to improve.

[redpost]

please stop trotting out the argument about pollution monitoring, the costs are very high:

install pollution monitoring station: ?50K - ?80K

annual running costs: ?19 - ?44K

in this location, costs will definitely be even higher

plus the fact they are BIG, not sure where they could be sited

pollution can easily be extrapolated from traffic levels, traffic surveys, weather etc

source: https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/reports/cat06/0608141644-386_Purchasing_Guide_for_AQ_Monitoring_Equipment_Version2.pdf

Rockets Wrote:

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

> redpost Wrote:

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

> -----

> > usual naive reasoning yet again here:

> >

> > 1) any immediate 'before' monitoring would be

> > during the lockdown, so data would be utterly

> > useless anyway

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

> > monitoring? I thought only the court lane

> > illuminati had access to this data?

> > 3) 'before' can easily be extrapolated from

> > previous monitoring in any case with a known

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

> adjusted

> > upwards to account for general traffic increase

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

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

> google

> > maps shows congestion levels)

> >

> > the traffic dept have software to do all of

> this,

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

> they

> > know?

> >

> >

> >

> > Spartacus Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

> > >

> >

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

>

> >

> > > -----

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

> > best,"

> > > >

> > > > How do you get to that conclusion?

> > >

> > > I suspect that because they have no base data

> > > taken from before the measures were

> implemented

> > so

> > > it appears that the council are really only

> > > playing lip service to monitoring and showing

> > the

> > > effects (good or bad)

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

> > the

> > > majority of (1000) people surveyed are happy

> > with

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

> > hair

> > > products (78% of 128 women agree ....) sadly

> not

> > a

> > > conclusive survey.

> > >

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

> quickly,

> > > with no base data resulting in massive

> > resentment

> > > by those directly effected.

> > >

> > > If the council do a proper unbiased survey

> and

> > use

> > > pre and post implementation monitoring of

> > schemes

> > > then maybe, just maybe people might start to

> > trust

> > > them again.

>

> Let me correct you on a couple of things.

>

> Firstly, these closures were planned long before

> Covid and there was a "consultation" process in

> progress when the council used Covid as the trojan

> horse to get them in (remember they first pushed

> this on the basis of the need for social

> distancing -see Cllr McAsh posts on said subject).

>

>

> We know there was no "before" monitoring because

> the council admitted that they were only

> monitoring the closed roads (due to lack of

> budget) then found the budget to do it when people

> said...how are you going to monitor how successful

> it's been if you can't see if all that has

> happened is the traffic has been displaced. This

> monitoring went in a month or so after the

> closures happened and as lockdown began to lift.

> So they have no base - they can, however, tell you

> how quiet the closed roads are.

>

> "Before" can be easily extrapolated ONLY if they

> had been monitoring the roads where displacement

> has taken place but there is no sign they had

> been. In fact, people have asked repeatedly to see

> the modelling the council will have had to have

> done on displacement but nothing has been

> forthcoming. People are, quite rightly, asking why

> are they not sharing that info. Why? Because in

> all likelihood their modelling will have shown the

> impact on the displacement roads. But of course

> this is part of the plan (but no-one will ever

> admit this) - by closing some roads you make the

> displacement roads so unbearable that you hope

> people find another means of transport. But only

> 10% of people do. So I can guarantee you someone

> in the roads department said: "Hang on, this is

> going to cause chaos elsewhere - the displacement

> roads can handle the increase in traffic.

>

> Let's also remember the council uses monitoring to

> help them justify the closures so, in the DV area

> for example, they only have figures in the

> consultation documents for monitoring on the roads

> they wanted to close.

>

> If data is so readily available and accurate from

> smartphones (I am not convinced you can just go to

> Google and say please give me all of your users'

> data - you certainly can't do it with Apple) then

> why do the council rely so heavily on monitoring

> strips across the road? That in itself suggests

> that is still their preferred option for data

> collection.

>

> Why are they refusing to monitor pollution?

>

> Let's also ground this discussion on the fact the

> council lied about the increase in traffic through

> the DV junction to justify their original closure

> plan before Covid. The 47% increase in traffic

> flow through the junction was a stat that was, at

> best, utterly misleading, at worst the worst case

> of deliberately feeding the constituents

> completely erroneous data to try to build support

> for their plans.

>

> Not much of the above appears as na?ve reasoning

> to me....the only naivety has been on the part of

> the council who hoped people wouldn't start

> scratching beneath the surface or asking the

> difficult questions they don't want to answer.

[first mate]

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?ID=500000049&RPID=772834242&HPID=772834242

[Rockets]

micromacromonkey Wrote:

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

> 11%? That's a pretty impressive result for any

> intervention like this. Crack on.

>

> And those who live on the currently (extra)

> polluted streets have the most to gain from all

> this, so yes they need to sit tight and wait for

> it to improve.

But it's not impressive is it - and remember that was the very best case scenario taken from reports extolling the virtues of LTNs - because from the DV junction alone (if you apply the 11% stat) 6200 cars will have to find another route. That's a minimum of 6200 vehicles driving down roads they previously didn't drive down - which goes some way to explain why EDG and Lordship Lane are so much more congested now.

You see the problem now? The displacement roads can't cope with the displacement so it won't get better. When the council shuts Townley for periods of the day then another east/west route across the area gets closed and the problem is exacerbated.

The people on the displacement roads can "sit tight" forever as it won't ever get any better on their roads.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

"which goes some way to explain why EDG and Lordship Lane are so much more congested now..."

Except there's no data to show this, and just a bunch of mixed anecdotal reports (of which mine is one). It's interesting that you want some things to be believed as fact without data because it suits you, and other things which don't suit you shouldn't be believed without data (and if it exists, you simply disagree with it or call it a lie).

[nxjen]

?The displacement roads can't cope with the displacement so it won't get better.?

That's assuming the same number of people continue to use their cars when the whole aim is that people get out of their cars for short journeys and walk/cycle more. I?m a non driver myself but I know a few people who are walking now instead of driving and it would be interesting to learn of others who are making the same lifestyle changes.

[Rockets]

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

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

> "which goes some way to explain why EDG and

> Lordship Lane are so much more congested now..."

>

> Except there's no data to show this, and just a

> bunch of mixed anecdotal reports (of which mine is

> one). It's interesting that you want some things

> to be believed as fact without data because it

> suits you, and other things which don't suit you

> shouldn't be believed without data (and if it

> exists, you simply disagree with it or call it a

> lie).

That's right - there is no data to show this as the council wasn't monitoring the displacement roads. Thanks for bringing this back to my original point so elegantly for me! ;-)

[Rockets]

nxjen Wrote:

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

> ?The displacement roads can't cope with the

> displacement so it won't get better.?

>

> That's assuming the same number of people continue

> to use their cars when the whole aim is that

> people get out of their cars for short journeys

> and walk/cycle more. I?m a non driver myself but I

> know a few people who are walking now instead of

> driving and it would be interesting to learn of

> others who are making the same lifestyle changes.

Yes everyone, myself included, is doing more but you would expect those people who move to walking or cycling to be factored into the 11% figure.

The council is targeting a 50% reduction which is probably a more realistic figure to ensure no negative displacement but I am not sure there are any LTNs or closures anywhere in the world that have delivered anywhere close to that number - so it makes you wonder what else they would have to do to reach it as these closures won't do it. Remember, even when public transport was running effectively Dulwich suffers from a lack of good public transport options (especially going East/West) which is why, I suspect, so many people have and use cars.

[micromacromonkey]

Rockets Wrote:

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

>

> But it's not impressive is it - and remember that

> was the very best case scenario taken from reports

> extolling the virtues of LTNs - because from the

> DV junction alone (if you apply the 11% stat) 6200

> cars will have to find another route. That's a

> minimum of 6200 vehicles driving down roads they

> previously didn't drive down - which goes some way

> to explain why EDG and Lordship Lane are so much

> more congested now.

>

> You see the problem now? The displacement roads

> can't cope with the displacement so it won't get

> better. When the council shuts Townley for periods

> of the day then another east/west route across the

> area gets closed and the problem is exacerbated.

>

> The people on the displacement roads can "sit

> tight" forever as it won't ever get any better on

> their roads.

It's not a zero-sum game. The idea is that car journeys disappear, not that they get displaced to somewhere else. This mode will be replaced by walking, cycling and public transport, or just by not doing the journey in the first place.

[FairTgirl]

Decent public and alternative routes across to Dulwich Vilage are a must, so many children from Peckham Bellenden area (as an example) do sports clubs over in and around Dulwich Village as that seems to be where nearly all sports clubs are located.

Some of the locations are nowhere near any public transport, so most have no other option than to drive - especially if taking a few kids and kits. If there were buses that serviced those areas better, or cycle lances the whole way, I know for a fact people would use them.

[Rockets]

micromacromonkey Wrote:

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

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> >

> > But it's not impressive is it - and remember

> that

> > was the very best case scenario taken from

> reports

> > extolling the virtues of LTNs - because from

> the

> > DV junction alone (if you apply the 11% stat)

> 6200

> > cars will have to find another route. That's a

> > minimum of 6200 vehicles driving down roads

> they

> > previously didn't drive down - which goes some

> way

> > to explain why EDG and Lordship Lane are so

> much

> > more congested now.

> >

> > You see the problem now? The displacement roads

> > can't cope with the displacement so it won't

> get

> > better. When the council shuts Townley for

> periods

> > of the day then another east/west route across

> the

> > area gets closed and the problem is

> exacerbated.

> >

> > The people on the displacement roads can "sit

> > tight" forever as it won't ever get any better

> on

> > their roads.

>

> It's not a zero-sum game. The idea is that car

> journeys disappear, not that they get displaced to

> somewhere else. This mode will be replaced by

> walking, cycling and public transport, or just by

> not doing the journey in the first place.

But they don't do they - even the pro-closure lobby talks about traffic evaporation - suggesting it condenses elsewhere. Traffic doesn't just disappear because you close some roads (a small percentage of it might do - that's the 11% as kids cycle to school or clubs, or people walk to the shops who used to drive) but there are still journeys that are being done in cars because not every journey can be done on foot, bike or public transport. The pro-closures lobby seems to have come to a bizarre conclusion that the all the people in cars in Dulwich are just locals driving within a one mile radius on a journey that can be walked or cycled. If that was the case then yes we could solve all the problems but I suspect the reality is very different from that.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

"The pro-closures lobby seems to have come to a bizarre conclusion that the all the people in cars in Dulwich are just locals driving within a one mile radius on a journey that can be walked or cycled."

No-one has said this.

"If there were buses that serviced those areas better, or cycle lances the whole way, I know for a fact people would use them."

There's no way of building more cycle lanes or improving bus services without restricting the volume of other traffic and the places it can park.

[alice]

DogKHB. I am pleased to direct you to a post made yesterday at 2.56pm in this thread which satisfies your above criteria and yet somehow as gained no traction. What do you think?

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

You mean the one proposing to ban street parking on certain roads? That one?

[ianr]

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

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

> You mean the one proposing to ban street

> parking on certain roads? That one?

There's only one post dated yesterday 2:56PM: https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,2144433,2148945#msg-2148945.

[alice]

Yes and use the space to create cycle lanes. There is off street parking available.

[northernmonkey]

Sports clubs in Dulwich:

JAGs - accessible via Greendale for many with a short stretch on the road - do-able with children. Alternatively kids on pavement, adult on the road. As long as they're sensible - give pedestrians room and go past slowly no one minds kids not being in the road (cycling at people is more of an issue!)

Dulwich College - with the filtered streets near the station those on the Oglander side (incidentally also filtered roads) can cycle up Melbourne / Derwent etc and then a very short stretch on EDG (agree that a cycle lane on there would be good and would support), turn off on Glengarry, Trossachs, Hillsboro - turn left onto the little bit of cycle lane by the junction and then along Townley to Calton - lovely for cycling down to the square. Then can chose to cycle up Court Lane to the park and through, or down Dulwich Village - once you get to the Gallery there is a shared use path right the way to the College.

I guess my point is that these locations are easy to cycle now.

Busses are obviously tricky for the moment - but JAGS has been long term served by the 37 bus and I don't see huge take up of people using it in preference to driving there!

FairTgirl Wrote:

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

> Decent public and alternative routes across to

> Dulwich Vilage are a must, so many children from

> Peckham Bellenden area (as an example) do sports

> clubs over in and around Dulwich Village as that

> seems to be where nearly all sports clubs are

> located.

>

> Some of the locations are nowhere near any public

> transport, so most have no other option than to

> drive - especially if taking a few kids and kits.

> If there were buses that serviced those areas

> better, or cycle lances the whole way, I know for

> a fact people would use them.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

ianr Wrote:

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

> Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

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

> -----

> > You mean the one proposing to ban street

> > parking on certain roads? That one?

>

> There's only one post dated yesterday 2:56PM:

> https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?

> 5,2144433,2148945#msg-2148945.

Yup, and it proposes restricting the places traffic can park! It's not rebutting my point, it's agreeing with it.

[peckhamside]

I'm not signing, close more roads please, get a coat and walk.

[alice]

yes ban street parking in the streets where there is off road parking in road block zone. Bring in cycle lanes in their place. Remove all road blocks.

This would create wide clear cycle routes - encouraging healthier transit.

Relieve congestion on narrow bus route - East Dulwich Grove

[slarti b]

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

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

> "Let's also ground this discussion on the fact the

> council lied..."

>

> Why ground the discussion in a lie?

The council, and specifically councillors, made a main plank of the OHS presentations that traffic had increased by 47% on a like for like basis. This was a lie.

They, C'llor Simmons in particular, said that traffic had increased so much that, if it had been at 2018 levels they would not have put Quietway 7 through DV junction. This was also a lie.

I have the figiures to support this, if you disagree with my comments please give me your figures.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

"I have the figures to support this"

Okay - so give them. Don't just call anything you don't want to hear lies or fake news. You're saying an elected official lied to the community. Identify what was said, identify what is correct, and show it's a lie. Give real sources, mind - not "my mate Terry overheard a councillor telling her hairdresser's dentist that Southwark wants to collectivise all Range Rovers".

[first mate]

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?id=500000049

2222

[redpost]

A guy signed it down the pub last night multiple times as "jeremy clarkson" and "lewis hamilton", it does not even validate the email address or stop multiple signings from the same IP/name/device. Therefore trumpeting figures is a waste of time.