Urgent: Help Reopen Closed Melbourne Grove and adjacent roads

[first mate]

I think the figures have been corrected as the numbers signing went up then down again, so the existing figure is probably genuine.

People can share an IP address.

[Abe_froeman]

In about 18 months there will be a ballot that the council won't be able to ignore.

2,200 votes is more than enough to displace all three of the goose green incumbents.

[nxjen]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> In about 18 months there will be a ballot that the

> council won't be able to ignore.

>

> 2,200 votes is more than enough to displace all

> three of the goose green incumbents.

Only if all those who signed the petition lived in the Goose Green Ward.

[Rockets]

nxjen Wrote:

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

> Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> -----

> > In about 18 months there will be a ballot that

> the

> > council won't be able to ignore.

> >

> > 2,200 votes is more than enough to displace all

> > three of the goose green incumbents.

>

>

> Only if all those who signed the petition lived in

> the Goose Green Ward.

Are the councillors prepared to roll that dice though....that will be key? We know from the OneDulwich supporter map that there are a lot of supporters throughout East Dulwich.

There is a lot riding on the council elections politically and they are being positioned as a bell-weather for how much Keir Starmer has managed to drag the Labour party out of the mess Corbyn left them in so taking a pounding in council elections will not be a good look at all. There is also the mayoral election next year too - lose that and lose a lot of traditionally safe seats at council level and Keir finds himself in a bit of a pickle.

I reckon the council abandons the next phase of planned closures, sees out the 6 month trails of those that are in place and then removes a lot of the closures to try and save face.

[FairTgirl]

bels123 Wrote:

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

> Since 2010 traffic on smaller roads is up 70%,

> whilst traffic on A and B roads has decreased. A

> worrying trend.

>

> https://twitter.com/martin_mckee/status/1307391031

> 499984897?s=20

Could this be to do with Google/Sat Navs etc?

If lower on A roads suggests same traffic but being diverted by apps.

[FairTgirl]

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> 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.

Geuninely, any advice on using public transport to get several kids from Bellenden area to Dulwich Sports Ground - as that also hosts many clubs.

[slarti b]

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

> 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.

See my post from April. Figures are Southwark's own ones.

https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,2092625,2110963#msg-2110963

Councillors continually denied the base figure was during the junction remodelling, even though they were told where

the figures came from . It would be nice for them to admit they were misleading people but I don't expect that to happen.

Enough for you?

[legalalien]

I'm guessing train from Peckham Rye to North Dulwich and then walk (15-20 mins walk) is the best bet...

[march46]

FairTgirl Wrote:

------------------------------------------------------- northernmonkey Wrote:

> Geuninely, any advice on using public transport to

> get several kids from Bellenden area to Dulwich

> Sports Ground - as that also hosts many clubs.

Not sure re public transport but it?s a comfortable bike ride since the filters have gone in on Dulwich Square and Melbourne Grove. I cycled from your direction every day for Summer clubs with two 6 years old and a 4 year old. Route as per northern monkey above works well - Calton, through Dulwich Square then Turney. 10 mins.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

slarti b Wrote:

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

> Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

>

> > 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.

>

> See my post from April. Figures are Southwark's

> own ones.

>

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

> 5,2092625,2110963#msg-2110963

>

> Councillors continually denied the base figure was

> during the junction remodelling, even though they

> were told where

> the figures came from . It would be nice for them

> to admit they were misleading people but I don't

> expect that to happen.

>

> Enough for you?

You've linked to a post in which you admit you don't actually know what the figure refers to. Yet despite the fact you don't know what the number is - you say it's a lie. You then go on to say that you do in fact know where it came from - but you don't think it's a fair comparison. But by this point you're neither saying it was a lie, nor is there any clarity on who raised the figure and what they said about it.

[holymoly]

I hear that Hillsboro' Rd is next closure coming up soon - probably a school street. that'll improve matters .....

[slarti b]

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

> You've linked to a post in which you admit you don't actually know what the figure refers to.

No you are wrong. The only uncertainty was the council's presentation and a couple of minor errors Southwark made. I was quoting the raw data; when I get back form work I will dig out the data in the published reports.

Will you apologise if I can quote from Southwark published reports showing that those figures are correct?

[Rockets]

slarti b Wrote:

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

> Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

> > You've linked to a post in which you admit you

> don't actually know what the figure refers to.

>

> No you are wrong. The only uncertainty was the

> council's presentation and a couple of minor

> errors Southwark made. I was quoting the raw data;

> when I get back form work I will dig out the data

> in the published reports.

>

> Will you apologise if I can quote from Southwark

> published reports showing that those figures are

> correct?

Slarti - those figures are correct - I remember reading them in the Southwark report - I believe it was the same one in which the council admitted that after their first "improvements" to the DV junction (designed to improve pollution) there was a "moderate" increase in pollution.

I don't know about you but DKHB doesn't seem like the apologetic type so let's see what happens when you find the report....;-)

I think Southwark have been keen to bury the smoking gun which is why it is so hard to find on their site now.

[northernmonkey]

As above, I wouldn't do it on public transport as you'd have to take the 37 and change to the P4 and that's not a great option even in non covid times. As per upthread - cycle your kids over, its a nice route and can imagine its much quicker than driving. If your kids can't cycle yet (though if they're old enough for sports clubs I'd imagine they can), then bike seats, tandems , follow -mes etc are options.

FairTgirl Wrote:

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

> northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> -----

> > 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.

>

>

> Geuninely, any advice on using public transport to

> get several kids from Bellenden area to Dulwich

> Sports Ground - as that also hosts many clubs.

[heartblock]

A cycle lane on EDG is needed, cyclists either end up in the middle of the road or on the pavement....open the closed roads, ban parking on one side of upper EDG and have a larger split pavement for cyclists and pedestrians.....easy.

[northernmonkey]

Totally agree that Ed grove needs a cycle lane- it?s not a zero sum though. The filtering of Melbourne provides a safe route through to the bellenden area too (incidentally much of which is filtered, people have just got used to it!)

[slarti b]

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

You've linked to a post in which you admit you don't actually know what the figure refers to.

As mentioned in my previous post, any uncertainty comes from how Southwark is reporting the figures, they have calculation errors and are unclear on the bases of some of some of their data. There are also small inconsistencies between the raw survey data on their web site and the annual reports.

Anyway, the figure of the 47% increase came from the map in Soutwark's Annual monitoring Report 2017/18. The narrative says "Traffic" in Dulwich Village increased from 10,290 (Sep 2017) to 14,745 (Sep 2018). This is actually an increase of 43.3% but you would need to query Southwark as to the discrepancy. It is also unclear whether the figure of 14,745 includes cycles.

Looking at Southwark's report for 2016\2017 this shows a decrease of 33% based on the figures of 10,290 (Sep 2017) vs 15,283 (Sep 2016).

Southwark's report for 2015\16 doesn't actually show any figures but from the Soutwark web site Traffic map we can see a figure of 15,055 motor Vehicles at DV in Sep 2015

So, to summarise the figures for DV

Sep 2015 15,055 Motor vehicles only

Sep 2016 14,822 Motor vehicles only

Sep 2017 10,290 Motor vehicles only

Sep 2018 14,745 Motor Vehicles and maybe bikes as well?

As you can see, the "47% increase" (or maybe 43%) was because of the big dip in traffic in Sep 2017 when Southwark was rebuildng the junction; it does not represent the massive increase in traffic alleged by Councillors and it shows that C'llor Simmons claim is false.

The OneDulwich web site has a nice graphic showing this as well, see https://www.onedulwich.uk/traffic-movements

The local C'llors were repeatedly challenged on the 47% increase and repeatedly claimed they were on a like for like basis, ie the base figures were not when the jucntion was being worked on. Either they were lying or they are naive, totally incompetent and unable to read their own Council's reports, even when they had the data pointed out to them.

Look at the thread with C'llor McAsh https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1932267,page=21

Anyway, now I have again provided the numbers (previously given in this and other threads) and shown the response from Councillors I am looking forward, not very hopefully, to an apology.

[alice]

Heartb. Have a look at my prev. 2 posts - wouldn?t that work? It?s too tight on east edg for buses and bike lane.

[slarti b]

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

Totally agree that Ed grove needs a cycle lane

One issue is that EDG is one of the "Main roads" along which the Council wants to divert traffic. Putting in a cycle lane runs the risk of making the existing congestion even worse and further slowing the 37 bus.

[heartblock]

EDG is a Resedential road that has schools and a health centre and a high percentage of cyclists and pedestrians. Making a wider pavement/cycle path by reducing parking on one side of the road, will not make the road smaller. The only thing slowing up the no 37 bus is the new road closures. This standing traffic is awful for cyclists during the commute, so they ride up the middle, the opposite lane or on the pavement. A cycle lane just requires good planning, so yes it will never happen as good planning for roads does not exist in Southwark.

[northernmonkey]

Theres plenty of space on the road - but the parking would need to go - its mostly empty by the Dutch estate but very full opposite the Charter school.

In fact though one option that could work for cyclists is a small stretch of cycle lane linking up melbourne grove to Glengarry and then cyclists can rejoin the road at the crossroads. Its less ideal for many reasons but if there is resistence it would be a good way of linking up the low traffic cells.

[heartblock]

Yes that end would work well, it is very wet on the road today, so I have seen cyclists giving up with the centre with slippery white lines and cycling on the pavement instead. This is what happens when ?planning? is poor. Large shared pedestrian-cycle paths with specified areas work well and keep cyclists safe.

[northernmonkey]

The problem with shared paths is if there are any volume of pedestrians or cyclists at all they quickly become unusable - as it pushes the problem onto a different group - my thought was if people could link from the protected stretches of road by the station, for a section of East Dulwich grove, the roads like Trossachs are suitably quiet to then cycle through - then can easily access Calton etc.

I think that what needs to happen now is more linkage between the low traffic neighbourhoods - so links between Dulwich Village and Railton Road - East Dulwich and Dulwich Village etc

[Rockets]

slarti b Wrote:

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

> Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

>

> You've linked to a post in which you admit you

> don't actually know what the figure refers to.

>

> As mentioned in my previous post, any uncertainty

> comes from how Southwark is reporting the figures,

> they have calculation errors and are unclear on

> the bases of some of some of their data. There are

> also small inconsistencies between the raw survey

> data on their web site and the annual reports.

>

> Anyway, the figure of the 47% increase came from

> the map in Soutwark's Annual monitoring Report

> 2017/18. The narrative says "Traffic" in Dulwich

> Village increased from 10,290 (Sep 2017) to 14,745

> (Sep 2018). This is actually an increase of 43.3%

> but you would need to query Southwark as to the

> discrepancy. It is also unclear whether the

> figure of 14,745 includes cycles.

>

> Looking at Southwark's report for 2016\2017 this

> shows a decrease of 33% based on the figures of

> 10,290 (Sep 2017) vs 15,283 (Sep 2016).

>

> Southwark's report for 2015\16 doesn't actually

> show any figures but from the Soutwark web site

> Traffic map we can see a figure of 15,055 motor

> Vehicles at DV in Sep 2015

>

> So, to summarise the figures for DV

>

> Sep 2015 15,055 Motor vehicles only

> Sep 2016 14,822 Motor vehicles only

> Sep 2017 10,290 Motor vehicles only

> Sep 2018 14,745 Motor Vehicles and maybe bikes

> as well?

>

> As you can see, the "47% increase" (or maybe 43%)

> was because of the big dip in traffic in Sep 2017

> when Southwark was rebuildng the junction; it does

> not represent the massive increase in traffic

> alleged by Councillors and it shows that C'llor

> Simmons claim is false.

>

> The OneDulwich web site has a nice graphic showing

> this as well, see

> https://www.onedulwich.uk/traffic-movements

>

> The local C'llors were repeatedly challenged on

> the 47% increase and repeatedly claimed they were

> on a like for like basis, ie the base figures were

> not when the jucntion was being worked on.

> Either they were lying or they are naive, totally

> incompetent and unable to read their own Council's

> reports, even when they had the data pointed out

> to them.

>

> Look at the thread with C'llor McAsh

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

> 5,1932267,page=21

>

> Anyway, now I have again provided the numbers

> (previously given in this and other threads) and

> shown the response from Councillors I am looking

> forward, not very hopefully, to an apology.

And here is the Dulwich Village monitoring report May 2019 that Southwark published after the first phase of the DV junction had been completed where they reference the "moderate" increase in pollution.

Interesting as well to note that the council installed a NO2 diffusion tube at the junction to monitor pollution yet now seems to think it isn't necessary to do so following the broader road closures. Hmmmmm....

Reading the report shows, clearly, that bar "an increase in cyclists using the quietway" the first round of works on the DV junction was a disaster. In fact, it is clear that the council actually made the junction worse from a congestion, pollution and safety aspect for all those trying to use it. Yet they did nothing about trying to rectify it.

People on here question the expertise of those analysing and commenting on this issue but I am not convinced the council has demonstrated they have any sort of handle on how to deal with these problems and seem to be happy to follow one failed project with another. Closing the DV junction is probably their last ditch attempt to try to bury the mess they have created.

[bels123]

This thread is becoming a repeat of the Our Healthy Streets one