Urgent: Help Reopen Closed Melbourne Grove and adjacent roads

[TheCropolite]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> TheCropolite Wrote:

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

> -----

> > tiddles Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > Rockets - spot on

> >

> >

> > You do realise this is what happens when you

> close

> > roads/lanes? There is an initial period where

> > congestion increases before it decreases.

> Google

> > it.

>

>

> 11% overall...Google it.....oh you don't need to

> it was in the links you sent earlier....in fact,

> if you had bothered to read the document links you

> sent you will see that in Waltham Forest there was

> a significant net increase in traffic on the roads

> not closed and this did not go down.

>

> Can the other roads in East Dulwich accommodate

> the remaining 89% of traffic? Dulwich Village has

> 7,000 car journeys per day through the Calton

> junction (the council's own numbers) - let's be

> very generous and say 1,000 of those journeys are

> then made by other means - are you sure the other

> roads that are not closed can accommodate another

> 6,000 car movements per day?

>

> And that is just one junction. Then throw in the

> other changes going in on Melbourne Grove, Townley

> etc and you have a huge amount of traffic being

> forcibly funnelled down roads like Lordship Lane

> and East Dulwich Grove.

>

> Do you see the problem a lot of us are concerned

> about - this isn't sovling a problem it's creating

> a much bigger one? It's classic traffic

> evaporation, it condenses and falls somewhere

> else.

Of those 6000 car movements how many are necessary? How many are over 1-2km? How many are transporting more than one person? People need to stop driving their cars like it?s their god given right, it?s really not that complicated. Check the data from that TFL link, it?s ridiculous.

P.S. this 11% number you keep giving is just one example there are plenty of others where it is significantly more than this.

[Rockets]

TheCropolite Wrote:

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

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

> > TheCropolite Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > tiddles Wrote:

> > >

> >

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

>

> >

> > > -----

> > > > Rockets - spot on

> > >

> > >

> > > You do realise this is what happens when you

> > close

> > > roads/lanes? There is an initial period where

> > > congestion increases before it decreases.

> > Google

> > > it.

> >

> >

> > 11% overall...Google it.....oh you don't need

> to

> > it was in the links you sent earlier....in

> fact,

> > if you had bothered to read the document links

> you

> > sent you will see that in Waltham Forest there

> was

> > a significant net increase in traffic on the

> roads

> > not closed and this did not go down.

> >

> > Can the other roads in East Dulwich accommodate

> > the remaining 89% of traffic? Dulwich Village

> has

> > 7,000 car journeys per day through the Calton

> > junction (the council's own numbers) - let's be

> > very generous and say 1,000 of those journeys

> are

> > then made by other means - are you sure the

> other

> > roads that are not closed can accommodate

> another

> > 6,000 car movements per day?

> >

> > And that is just one junction. Then throw in

> the

> > other changes going in on Melbourne Grove,

> Townley

> > etc and you have a huge amount of traffic being

> > forcibly funnelled down roads like Lordship

> Lane

> > and East Dulwich Grove.

> >

> > Do you see the problem a lot of us are

> concerned

> > about - this isn't sovling a problem it's

> creating

> > a much bigger one? It's classic traffic

> > evaporation, it condenses and falls somewhere

> > else.

>

> Of those 6000 car movements how many are

> necessary? How many are over 1-2km? How many are

> transporting more than one person? People need to

> stop driving their cars like it?s their god given

> right, it?s really not that complicated. Check the

> data from that TFL link, it?s ridiculous.

>

>

> P.S. this 11% number you keep giving is just one

> example there are plenty of others where it is

> significantly more than this.

The problem is no-one knows about those 6,000 car journeys as the council never did that analysis - which we were saying they should have done as they didn't have the granularity to make a decision to close off Calton when they suggested it as part of OHS.

I take TFL data with a huge pinch of salt - all the research goes round and round in circles and often comes back to being sourced from those with a vested interest in justifying their desire to close roads for cars.

Regular poster on this forum ExDulwicher (who works in the business) says, if I remember correctly, that the most they have seen is 24% but the mean is very much 11%.

And I remind you that the 11% came from one of the reports you sent out so by default you must agree with that stat as you were encouraing us to read it!!! ;-)

[Bic Basher]

I was surprised when the section of Melbourne Grove outside the station was suddenly closed considering the businesses that are on that section of road.

There's some good reasoning to close the residential section of Melbourne Grove between East Dulwich Grove and LL, but this decision does seem short sighted.

[TheCropolite]

Exactly, 24% less cars on the road is a very good step in the right direction, heck 11% less cars is better than nothing!

[Thorncombe]

What happens when all cars are electric and the pollution argument can't be used anymore! As a compromise why can't Melbourne Grove be made one way, Derwent Grove the other direction.

More space for pedestrians and bike's, congestion on EDG avoided and businesses still have access to passing trade..

[TheCropolite]

Well I give up, it seems like we?re all screwed, apparently no one is going to wake up and pay attention until this bites them very hard in the arse.

[Thorncombe]

There is a way to approach climate change and pollution. Simply closing roads and hoping traffic disappears is not the way.

[macutd]

TheCropolite Wrote:

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

> The funny thing with traffic is it often gets bad

> shortly after road/lane closures and then gets

> better as people realise that the journeys they

> previously used to take end up taking too long for

> them to be worth it and use quicker modes of

> transport.

>

> Some reading material for you:

> https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/londonlivingstreets

> .com/2019/07/11/evaporating-traffic-impact-of-low-

> traffic-neighbourhoods-on-main-roads/amp/

>

> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess%27s_paradox

>

>

> https://www.rapidtransition.org/stories/reducing-r

> oads-can-cause-traffic-to-evaporate/

>

> FYI the people who make these decisions are civil

> engineers, with many other checks and balances.

> Its not like some jobsworth who has nothing better

> to do thought let?s close a few roads to wind

> everyone up. In regards to lack of consultation

> that is a shame, however had they done a

> consultation and explained to you that closing

> roads can actually reduce traffic and car use in

> the long run would you take that into

> consideration?

>

> I would give it some time to see if it does work

> in reducing traffic in the coming weeks/months.

How condescending can you get!! So what quicker mode of transport should I be using?

[march46]

thebestnameshavegone Wrote:

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

> We need to have fewer car trips in London. It?s

> really simple. You?re either pro low traffic

> stuff. Or you?re pro more car congestion.

Well said. I heard a stat the other day that 1 in 7 car journeys in London is under 1km - this isn't sustainable. Making the car the least convenient option and at the same time creating safer spaces for people to walk and cycle is essential.

[redpost]

One way usually means excessive speeds

Then they would have to put speed bumps down

Which would mean even more pollution as cars accelerate to 30/40 for a few seconds, brake sharply for the bump wasting the momentum they've burned fuel for and shedding loads of brake lining particulates before accelerating again for the next bump

[Spartacus]

march46 Wrote:

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

> thebestnameshavegone Wrote:

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

> -----

> > We need to have fewer car trips in London. It?s

> > really simple. You?re either pro low traffic

> > stuff. Or you?re pro more car congestion.

>

>

> Well said. I heard a stat the other day that 1 in

> 7 car journeys in London is under 1km - this isn't

> sustainable. Making the car the least convenient

> option and at the same time creating safer spaces

> for people to walk and cycle is essential.

Have the 1 in 7 stats identified what these under 1km journeys are for ?

If they are, for example, family shopping runs to the supermarket then they are possibly justified.

The information behind the stats is just as important as the stats themselves.

[FairTgirl]

I would like to reiterate the below for those of you who believe in democracy and agree that people should be consulted on these matters first.

Please sign our online petition, and email your local councillors to express your views. You can also express your views on the specific road closures via an app I have copied in below.

Please show us your support if you can. There are peoples livelihoods and health at stake.

Please Follow us on twitter @GroveReopen and please retweet our tweets to any local journalists

Petition

[chng.it] to sign the petition.

You can also voice your views here

Streetspace East Dulwich : [eastdulwichstreetspace.commonplace.is]

Email your councillors below;

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

and

[email protected]

[email protected]

[northbank]

 Londoners make 3.6 million daily journeys by motorised modes (car, motorcycle, taxi or public transport) that could be walked, at least in part

 1.6m are made by car

 Shopping and personal business account for the highest share ? 37 per cent ? of all potentially walkable trips. This is largely equal to the profile of existing walk trips, where nearly four in 10 trips are made for shopping or personal business purposes

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/analysis-of-walking-potential-2016.pdf

 Londoners make 8.17 million daily trips by motorised modes (car, motorcycle,taxi or public transport) that could be cycled,

 4.7m are made by car

 Almost half of all potentially cyclable trips are made for shopping and leisure purposes, with one in six made for commuting reasons

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/analysis-of-cycling-potential-2016.pdf

Spartacus Wrote:

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

> march46 Wrote:

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

> -----

> > thebestnameshavegone Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > We need to have fewer car trips in London.

> It?s

> > > really simple. You?re either pro low traffic

> > > stuff. Or you?re pro more car congestion.

> >

> >

> > Well said. I heard a stat the other day that 1

> in

> > 7 car journeys in London is under 1km - this

> isn't

> > sustainable. Making the car the least

> convenient

> > option and at the same time creating safer

> spaces

> > for people to walk and cycle is essential.

>

> Have the 1 in 7 stats identified what these under

> 1km journeys are for ?

>

> If they are, for example, family shopping runs to

> the supermarket then they are possibly justified.

>

>

> The information behind the stats is just as

> important as the stats themselves.

[Abe_froeman]

Some of you need to think about what you are being brain washed with.

" 1 in 7 car journeys in London is under 1km - this isn't sustainable. Making the car the least convenient option and at the same time creating safer spaces for people to walk and cycle is essential."

To stop those 1 in 7 so-called unsustainable trips your only thinking is that the 6 in 7 long journeys should also be made to queue, engines idling, starting and stopping creating more particle emissions than is necessary etc.

Saying all car journeys should be forced into traffic so that 1/7th of them might be made by bicycle is just brainless.

[Rockets]

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.

>

> You may think what they?re doing is stupid and is

> not going to do anything, but I think in hindsight

> you?ll hopefully realise that any measures to

> reduce car use are good, and this is one such

> measure.

A little further analysis of the link you shared from TFL is very telling. Slide 14 Car Use by Geography shows the car use by London borough league table - at the top is Bexley, then Sutton, Hillingdon, Barnet, Harrow, Bromley.....Southwark comes a distant 26th out of 32 (with 32 being the best having the lowest car usage in London).

Below Southwark are Hammersmith and Fulham, Haringey, Westminster, Hackney, Tower Hamlets and Islington - most of which have much better transportation links to, and across, the city compared to our part of Southwark.

Southwark has a third less car journeys than neighbouring Bromley or Croydon. It would be great if the council understood where the traffic in Southwark emanates - is it locals going about their daily lives or is it from neighbouring boroughs because it appears to be the residents who are bearing the brunt of these closures.

[stecoward101]

I notice the coffee shop is still doing well. I am not sure cars drive down Melbourne Grove to buy a smoothy or get keys cut, try on second hand clothes or visit an Italian who has been empty for over a year. Blocking off Melbourne Grove is a great thing for local, cyclists and pedestrians and also improves the safety of the children who attend the school. I urge the local residents to stop using the businesses that are trying to unblock it.

[bubbachumps]

Yes I think we need bold action to make driving less appealing unless it's really necessary. Otherwise nothing will ever improve in terms of air quality. These changes take time to bed in but in the end they are for the benefit of us all, especially children and young people who will have to deal with the mess we've made of the world in environmental terms. Everyone needs to see driving as a less attractive option.

[Rockets]

stecoward101 Wrote:

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

> I notice the coffee shop is still doing well. I am

> not sure cars drive down Melbourne Grove to buy a

> smoothy or get keys cut, try on second hand

> clothes or visit an Italian who has been empty for

> over a year. Blocking off Melbourne Grove is a

> great thing for local, cyclists and pedestrians

> and also improves the safety of the children who

> attend the school. I urge the local residents to

> stop using the businesses that are trying to

> unblock it.

Wow.....what a wonderfully empathetic sense of community you are displaying....

[stecoward101]

Not sure why you sarcastic remark is needed. I believe caring for the welfare of children walking to school is more important that access to shops both ways. Please remember that the shops are still accessible to cars if they travel the other way.

I live, work and volunteer in this community so maybe you should take your sarcasm and use it where it works.

[Rockets]

stecoward101 Wrote:

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

> Not sure why you sarcastic remark is needed. I

> believe caring for the welfare of children walking

> to school is more important that access to shops

> both ways. Please remember that the shops are

> still accessible to cars if they travel the other

> way.

>

> I live, work and volunteer in this community so

> maybe you should take your sarcasm and use it

> where it works.

...but urging people not to use shops who are lobbying against the closures....that's not at all community minded.

[Serena2012]

stecoward101 Wrote:

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

> Not sure why you sarcastic remark is needed. I

> believe caring for the welfare of children walking

> to school is more important that access to shops

> both ways. Please remember that the shops are

> still accessible to cars if they travel the other

> way.

>

> I live, work and volunteer in this community so

> maybe you should take your sarcasm and use it

> where it works.

I am genuinely confused by your comment about children walking to school. Granted, the closure of Melbourne is great for those Charter ED kids who access from Jarvis Road. BUT what about the thousands of other children educated at Alleyn?s; JAGS; Harris ED; Goose Green; Judith Kerr; DVIS, who are now suffering far worse air quality and attending schools on far busier roads than they were hitherto. Most of these, presumably also have to walk/ intersect with busier roads in order to get to school.

I don?t know much about Charter ED?s Covid measures, but understand anecdotally that some of their students are now being asked to enter via EDG, and not Jarvis Road, so if this is correct, closing Melbourne North doesn?t even help all of Charter ED?s children, let alone any others.

Personally, I have no objection to Melbourne North becoming a school street. However its closure 24/7 is hugely disproportionate.

[stecoward101]

I was going to start with how I love anecdotal 'facts' however after pointing out to Rocket this is a ridicules thing to do so I wont.

Melbourne Grove is used as a rat run by drivers who very rarely stick to the speed limit and therefore blocking it off can only be a good thing.

The air quality argument is flawed as Southwalk LA is trying to get people out of their cars so better air quality for us all. Did you not notice the difference during the lockdown you could actually take a deep breath in without the taste of burning fuel.

The parking charges that are to be introduced should also get people out of their cars too.

To be clear I do care about all the children's safety on their way to school just have a clear view of the kids "piling' out of Charter with footballs, etc.

[stecoward101]

Thanks for your comments. TBH It just grinds that local shops don't appear to be be community spirited as they want the rat run to be allowed without regard for the residents or other users of the street, therefore I Stand by my view.```

[RichH]

stecoward101 Wrote:

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

> Did you not notice the difference during the lockdown you could actually take a deep breath in without the taste

> of burning fuel.

>

:)) What utterly hysterical sensationalism. Try looking at what air quality was like in the 1950's. Now THAT was pollution.

[sally buying]

Do you live in Melbourne Grove by any chance Stecowward?