Urgent: Help Reopen Closed Melbourne Grove and adjacent roads

[Siduhe]

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.

This, this, a thousand times this. As someone who very rarely drives and cycles/walks very regularly including commuting into central London, it?s incredibly frustrating that my cycle journey feels considerably less safe than it did around Underhill/Melford as a result of displaced traffic from Court Lane. As I said on the other thread, I?m open to the idea it might settle down over time but our local councillors have been told there are no current plans to monitor the knock on effects on streets like ours as part of the decision process whether to make these changes permanent. And as both roads are bus routes, no prospect of LTN measures. I?d love to know what ideas and measures there are to help people like us who are exactly the people trying to make the changes everyone is asking for, but being hit hard by measures to help other areas.

[Rockets]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> 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.

James,

I agree that your non-Southwark traffic idea makes perfect sense - if, of course, the council can establish what the key problem is and they determine how that works given we are near the borders of two other boroughs. Of course, if everyone does that it will be difficult to get anywhere.

The problem is the council is totally clueless as to what they are trying to fix and think closing a load of key roads in the area solves the problem when it is clear it does not. Such measures are creating huge resentment across Dulwich and turning many against the pro-cycle lobby and it is doing massive damage to the broader common-sense approach of encouraging more people to change their transport means.

Residents (unless they happen to be part of Southwark Cyclists or one of the many pro-closure lobby groups) have not been consulted - just informed that these "emergency Covid measures" are going in whether they like it or not. That is the right way to rub a lot of people up the wrong way.

As a member of Southwark Cyclists and an East Dulwich resident do you really think these measures are working and given there are more closures going in any day now that the problem isn't going to get worse? Lordship Lane is becoming a pollution nightmare and most of us shop and eat out there - why should that be inflicted on a large percentage of the population to appease a small proportion of it?

[Rockets]

Siduhe Wrote:

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

> 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.

>

> This, this, a thousand times this. As someone who

> very rarely drives and cycles/walks very regularly

> including commuting into central London, it?s

> incredibly frustrating that my cycle journey feels

> considerably less safe than it did around

> Underhill/Melford as a result of displaced traffic

> from Court Lane. As I said on the other thread,

> I?m open to the idea it might settle down over

> time but our local councillors have been told

> there are no current plans to monitor the knock on

> effects on streets like ours as part of the

> decision process whether to make these changes

> permanent. And as both roads are bus routes, no

> prospect of LTN measures. I?d love to know what

> ideas and measures there are to help people like

> us who are exactly the people trying to make the

> changes everyone is asking for, but being hit hard

> by measures to help other areas.

And what I cannot fathom is how the council thinks that adding even more closures (like those on Peckham Rye) is going to do anything other than make roads that used to be perfectly safe to cycle down an absolute nightmare.

[Spartacus]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> 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.

Sounds to me James that you want to make Dulwich a gated community to keep the Riff Raff from other boroughs or towns out 😱

[Abe_froeman]

A local estate agent told me this week that the LTN traffic issues are now also absolutely killing house prices across the area.

Buyers just don't want to live in an area with traffic jams running through the heart of it and won't pay over the odds as a result.

[ruffers]

But if you're on Court Lane, or Melbourne Grove.....?

[Charles Notice]

Spartacus Wrote:

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

> James Barber Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> > 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.

>

> Sounds to me James that you want to make Dulwich a

> gated community to keep the Riff Raff from other

> boroughs or towns out 😱

James as a resident of Champion Hill perhaps you wants to bring the joy of a closed road to all residents whilst pushing traffic elsewhere.

[Abe_froeman]

They are affected too ruffers... Buyers sitting in the agent's car in traffic trying to get to the appointment, hearing car horns etc.

It's a very bad look all round.

[Nigello]

Rockets ? no, I don?t use Amazon, etc. and never have delivery food or Ocado, etc. I don?t take taxis or Uber. Utilities don?t need to come here and most deliveries (95%, I?d say) are brought by my pedestrian postman. It?s called putting your money where your mouth is. Give it a try, and encourage others.

[Nigello]

Dougie ? of course it?s a fact. It?s self evident they?ve chosen to drive. Nobody forced them. They chose. The alternatives may be less convenient but they still chose to do it.

It?s really simple ? if we want less traffic then everyone must reduce their use of motor vehicles. People don?t like this fact so they invent distractions and whatabouts.

Drive less and use fewer services that use motor vehicles and traffic will reduce... Give it a go!

[alice]

The term ?rat-running? is meaningless except for its perjorative implications. People are not vermin.

[dougiefreeman]

Nigello Wrote:

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

> Dougie ? of course it?s a fact. It?s self evident

> they?ve chosen to drive. Nobody forced them. They

> chose. The alternatives may be less convenient but

> they still chose to do it.

>

> It?s really simple ? if we want less traffic then

> everyone must reduce their use of motor vehicles.

> People don?t like this fact so they invent

> distractions and whatabouts.

>

> Drive less and use fewer services that use motor

> vehicles and traffic will reduce... Give it a go!

Ahh I think I get it now, you think it?s a fact because you say so?

Just in case there was any misunderstanding before, I was asking you to provide your evidence / source for your claim that the bad traffic was made up of people who?d made a ?short journey?. I was wondering how on earth you could possibly know that. We?re you knocking on windows asking them how far they?d come? Or do you have access to some data that the rest of us don?t?

[Rockets]

Nigello Wrote:

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

> Rockets ? no, I don?t use Amazon, etc. and never

> have delivery food or Ocado, etc. I don?t take

> taxis or Uber. Utilities don?t need to come here

> and most deliveries (95%, I?d say) are brought by

> my pedestrian postman. It?s called putting your

> money where your mouth is. Give it a try, and

> encourage others.

Please let us know where this 1950s enclave is where you live! Not sure there has been a pedestrian post person in East Dulwich for a while - well certainly not since the Silvester Road sorting office closed. Our postie drives to the end of our road and then delivers the mail. Do you grow your own food too or only buy food grown on the premises you can walk too? ;-)

In all seriousness I think everyone is analysing how things get to them. In my youth I used to work in a supermarket on a Saturday and once got taken to their distribution center and was horrified (and this was long before people were aware of climate problems) that fruit grown in Kent was sent to Birmingham for processing and packaging and then sent back to Kent to be sold in a supermarket less than 10 miles from where it was grown.

[dulwichfolk]

Around 1220 ambulance with blue lights flashing today going down grove vale indicates right to go down Melbourne grove, can?t so continues to drive still indicating right in the end has to go via lordship lane traffic to eventually get to a house on east dulwich grove near green dale.

This is the real life affect of these closures.

[heartblock]

Yes I saw that ambulance... huge queue on EDG as cars couldn?t divert off the smaller roads.

[singalto]

This doesn?t seem to be a good time to close roads as people go back to the work place but are discouraged from using public transport.

[Rockets]

dulwichfolk Wrote:

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

> Around 1220 ambulance with blue lights flashing

> today going down grove vale indicates right to go

> down Melbourne grove, can?t so continues to drive

> still indicating right in the end has to go via

> lordship lane traffic to eventually get to a house

> on east dulwich grove near green dale.

>

> This is the real life affect of these closures.

"Collateral damage" or "Not due to the closures". I wonder which one the pro-closure lobby will categorise this as?

[macutd]

East Dulwich Grove and Grove Vale are now dangerous for cyclists (Me)

There is too much traffic on these roads

please re open the side roads to take the pressure off

[FairTgirl]

macutd Wrote:

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

> East Dulwich Grove and Grove Vale are now

> dangerous for cyclists (Me)

> There is too much traffic on these roads

> please re open the side roads to take the pressure

> off

Totally agree, poor thinking at worst time of year, when traffic levels go up every year in response to weather, to then try and squeeze all onto same roads, and to hope you will get some evaporation.

If you do get some people to change behaviour, and some people have which is terrific, but if what James Barber says is true, if 50% of the traffic is coming through the area, they won't be replacing those journeys with bicycles or walking as they are longer journeys maybe with multiple stops so in reality you just have worst congestion. All the plans of this ilk that do work involve proper planning, investment, consultation with everyone and a decent run up.

I think you can also change peoples behaviour by upping fuel duties and using the extra income to build the alternative cleaner transport links. Make the alternatives far more attractive than the car. Then you don't need to close roads and cross fingers.

There was a massive queue of traffic from GG round-about to the GG playground on Saturday around 12 noon, does anyone know why? Any accidents?

[Rockets]

It's the displacement tsunami in full effect....remember Waltham Forest LTN seems to have caused a 28% increase in traffic on roads 3.1 miles way....

[JohnL]

Every year of fuel duty freeze means something else has to give because of the way budgets are calculated.

"The issue is that the Office for Budget Responsibility, which provides independent forecasts for the government, assumes that fuel duty will rise by inflation every year ? despite all evidence to the contrary."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/04/treasury-raise-fuel-duty-chancellors-freeze

[ED - NAGAIUTB]

This (see attached) is the way Cllr Peter John OBE of Southwark treats his constituents and their businesses.

[northbank]

dougiefreeman Wrote:

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

> Nigello Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Dougie ? of course it?s a fact. It?s self

> evident

> > they?ve chosen to drive. Nobody forced them.

> They

> > chose. The alternatives may be less convenient

> but

> > they still chose to do it.

> >

> > It?s really simple ? if we want less traffic

> then

> > everyone must reduce their use of motor

> vehicles.

> > People don?t like this fact so they invent

> > distractions and whatabouts.

> >

> > Drive less and use fewer services that use

> motor

> > vehicles and traffic will reduce... Give it a

> go!

>

> Ahh I think I get it now, you think it?s a fact

> because you say so?

>

> Just in case there was any misunderstanding

> before, I was asking you to provide your evidence

> / source for your claim that the bad traffic was

> made up of people who?d made a ?short journey?. I

> was wondering how on earth you could possibly know

> that. We?re you knocking on windows asking them

> how far they?d come? Or do you have access to some

> data that the rest of us don?t?

"A little over a third (35 per cent) of all car trips are shorter than 2 km, just under a third (32 per Cent) are between 2 and 5km and the remaining third are longer than 5km"

[Rockets]

So let's look at this pragmatically.

35% of all car trips are shorter than 2km.

- You can certainly eliminate some of these but you can't eliminate them all.

32% are between 2km and 5km.

- Much harder to eliminate these

30+% are over 5km.

- Much much harder to eliminate these

So the rational discussion you have to have is can you eliminate enough of the car journeys so that the remainder do not cause more problems finding other routes? Even if you managed to eliminate 30% of all car journeys (and I don't think anyone from the pro-lobby can show any closures that have done anything close to this) you are still left with a significant displacement problem.

Every LTN causes a displacement tsunami - that much is clear - the question is 1) can you eliminate enough cars to prevent a massively negatively impact or 2) can the surrounding roads absorb the displacement? On both counts in Dulwich the current evidence suggests overwhelmingly the answer is no.

[Dulwichgirl82]

I think the view of the nursery in east dulwich grove is both telling and sad.