Urgent: Help Reopen Closed Melbourne Grove and adjacent roads

[stecoward101]

No. I walk my dog down there in the morning. Thank you for you enquiry.

[stecoward101]

So it was bad in the 50's. Does that detract from the fact that it is bad now. Stop living in the past RicH.

[stecoward101]

Continuing on the question do I live on Melbourne Grove. Would this matter if I did? Are only people from Melbourne Grove allowed to comment on the success or failure of this.

[FairTgirl]

So you think businesses should be boycotted as they would like some consultation on what is happening outside their business?

Who says we want a rat run? No one has bothered to ask us what we want.

There are solutions that keep residents, and school children safe and businesses happy.

[redpost]

(yorkshire accent)

bah that's nothing! you should have been here during victorian times, now that was REAL pollution, you were literally breathing liquid coal tar

RichH Wrote:

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

> 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]

stecoward101 Wrote:

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

> Continuing on the question do I live on Melbourne

> Grove. Would this matter if I did? Are only people

> from Melbourne Grove allowed to comment on the

> success or failure of this.

From past experience the answer would be yes.

Closing off Melbourne Grove was defeated by common sense a while a back but lets have it closed residents and Southwark used the covid 19 thing to do what people voted against and are using this virus to pass what they want all over the borough.

Not thought out at all and certainly not any joined up plans.

[Abe_froeman]

Stecoward please can you tell us which bus8ness you work for so we can campaign to prevent it from having vehicular access and hopefully shut it down.

Sorry about your job etc.

[stecoward101]

2 Points here

1. 'Who says we want a rat run?' If you had been consulted on that question would you have said yes.

2. The business' don't want a consultation. If you look at the posters in their windows there is not a single word about consultation. They want the planters removed.

Can I again reiterate Cars can still access the shops but now only one way.

Thanks for reading.

[stecoward101]

I own my business and I work from home therefore it would be difficult for you to sabotage it. I am only directing my view to those shops who want to open up Melbourne Grove without caring for their community.

I am getting bored of having to repeat.

[stecoward101]

@Sally Buying - When you say a while back when do you mean. I have lived in the neighbourhood for nearly a decade and have never been consulted on this. Can people stop living in the past and recognise a problem.

[redpost]

Scenario one:

drive to sainsburys, do the shop

back in car, stop off at the layby outside marks and sparks to pick up some percy pigs (even though parking not allowed here)

drive round the corner and park in melborne grove for bi-weekly colonic irrigation appt

get back in car and swear at a cyclist on way home

Scenario two:

drive to sainsburys do the shop

walk to marks

walk to business on melborne grove

perhaps stop for a coffee if you have time

walk back to car (you've got 3h free parking)

It's not difficult is it??

[srisky]

.

[stecoward101]

Well Done redPost I wish I had put it that way rather than giving some people the opportunity to annoy me.

[dougiefreeman]

stecoward101 Wrote:

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

> 2 Points here

>

> 1. 'Who says we want a rat run?' If you had been

> consulted on that question would you have said

> yes.

>

> 2. The business' don't want a consultation. If you

> look at the posters in their windows there is not

> a single word about consultation. They want the

> planters removed.

>

> Can I again reiterate Cars can still access the

> shops but now only one way.

>

> Thanks for reading.

Just in response to your second point.

In order to have a properly consulted conversation about this, the planters need to first be removed - they should never have been installed without a proper consultation in the first place and so you can understand why businesses are prioritising using their voice to lobby first for the reversal of these measures.

It may of course, after consultation, turn out that the overwhelming majority are in favour (I doubt it) and then the planters can be installed with the backing of a proper democratic process. But since there has been no such democratic process as of yet they really should be removed until the council set one up.

Would you be in favour of parliament deciding on a prime minister and then asking the public afterwards to vote on whether they approve or not?

[sally buying]

stecoward101 Wrote:

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

> @Sally Buying - When you say a while back when do

> you mean. I have lived in the neighbourhood for

> nearly a decade and have never been consulted on

> this. Can people stop living in the past and

> recognise a problem.

Believe this was 2019, may be wrong. posting from RCH ex Cllr for the area

Posted by rch January 08, 05:33PM

Firstly... thanks again, Janet. I've now seen the photos and understand the location and the problem. It was great that you took the photos and that the lorry stopped and left a note, so hopefully the damage can now be repaired with an insurance claim.

Macutd... the difference between Melbourne Grove and other roads is that it's too narrow here for some cars to pass when cars are parked on both sides of the road. There needs to be passing spaces inserted at the junctions at minimum, which would help enormously. The council proposed doing this with extended double yellow lines but it was blocked by councillors. Instead, a small fortune was spent on dysfunctional consultations and up-grading the existing speed cushions to speed humps. But, not only is this not addressing the actual problems, but it's causing other problems. We've been saying for YEARS that the car damage isn't caused by speeding (which has regularly been measured at an average speed of 19mph), but by the narrowness of the roads.

Jamming, there's one specific location where special Thames Water sewer flood control pump mechanisms in the road along a specific terrace could be damaged by implementing speed humps, thereby causing intense internal flooding, so we have been discussing other legal methods of speed control works which could also accommodate some of the passing problems. FYI, there are three legal ways to control speeding in a 20mph zone... 1)speed humps, 2) buildouts on a junction corner, and 3) pedestrian islands. Speed humps are the most problematic.

Yes, creditwheredue... residents voted in a highways consultation for the double yellow lines at the Colwell junction, but councillors objected. As much as I hate ugly double yellow lines, it's even more distressing watching regular road rage damage incidents outside my house, which other local residents are also witnessing.

Slowly but surely, me and other residents are uniting to try to get Highways and councillors to understand the problems, which will inevitably cost more council funds to address. This has been going on for DECADES...

Surprised you did not know about Melbourne Grove as it appears you live there according to a posting you made.

Stacey-lyn We are in Melbourne Grove. I have no idea how they keep any customers. However they did refund me the 15 months money that I had paid for their terrible service.

[Spartacus]

redpost Wrote:

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

> Scenario one:

>

> drive to sainsburys, do the shop

> back in car, stop off at the layby outside marks

> and sparks to pick up some percy pigs (even though

> parking not allowed here)

> drive round the corner and park in melborne grove

> for bi-weekly colonic irrigation appt

> get back in car and swear at a cyclist on way

> home

>

> Scenario two:

>

> drive to sainsburys do the shop

> walk to marks

> walk to business on melborne grove

> perhaps stop for a coffee if you have time

> walk back to car (you've got 3h free parking)

>

>

> It's not difficult is it??

Scenario three

Same as scenario one but necessary because you are disabled, elderly or have difficulty walking through some other condition.

Sadly the measures being implemented are restrictive for the above groups and may even be against the equality act 2010 (although I'm not a lawyer)

Do you really want to exclude them just so young and fit people can walk and cycle ? Before you reply , "There but for the grace of God goes thee" is worth considering!

[exdulwicher]

There are solutions that keep residents, and school children safe and businesses happy.

Like what? Genuine question - what is the solution that keeps everyone happy?

This has been asked before by others over on the Healthy Streets thread where people are talking about "holistic solutions" without actually coming up with any "solution" (holistic or otherwise) that is not just "reopen the streets so I can drive anywhere I want".

Sometimes it's masked behind "concerns" for the elderly, the disabled, BAME and/or children but it basically all boils down to "I am being inconvenienced and that's terrible".

There are countless studies from all over the world that show that pedestrianising streets or at least seriously restricting traffic along them (whether that's via LTNs, one-way systems, bus/taxi only etc) leads to more pleasant retail environments, higher average spend and higher number of visits. Most shopkeepers dramatically over-estimate how many customers arrive by car (because a lot of vehicle movement is through-traffic that has zero benefit to the area but does make it look busy).

But what is this mythical solution? Genuine question - I'm interested!

Again, it got mentioned elsewhere but every single person sitting in a traffic jam is saying to themselves "this is terrible, they (as in the council, the Government) should do something about it, they (as in every other driver) should be walking or cycling or travelling outside rush hour". But never that they (the person behind the wheel) should change their travel habits, not be driving 2km, not be making three trips when one, better planned one could suffice...

And now that something is being done about it, the answer is to re-open all roads immediately?

There are a load of factors in this. We're in a climate crisis. We're in breach of all sorts of UK, EU and WHO targets / limits on pollution. We're in a pandemic - one that is quite closely linked to air quality but has also had a major impact on travel patterns.

The traffic models are currently struggling to catch up to a massive change from "the daily commute" / "the school run" (via whatever means that takes) to "only essential travel" to the current rather mixed message about trying to get back to work and school but trying to avoid public transport but also trying not to all jump into cars - which would result in gridlock whether the roads were closed or not.

I don't think there's one answer to any of this, I think there's a range of answers - some of which will work better in some areas than others - but I also KNOW that there's early disruption and complaints to be expected because this happens globally as soon as you try things like this. It happened in The Netherlands 40-50 years ago when they started moving away from their initial plans of roads and cars everywhere; it happened in New York when they pedestrianised Times Square and brought in a bike-share scheme; in San Francisco when bike lanes were introduced at the expense of car parking... Worldwide, you get this graph:

I'm not saying that the closures are all right and perfect but actually, as a process, this is the ideal situation. It's far easier and cheaper to introduce temporary change, model it, consult on it as it happens, be able to physically SEE the changes (good and bad), adjust it than it is to simply keep digging up bits of road in futile attempts to micro-manage (like DV junction, Loughborough Junction etc).

And if you want some advice on changing things, as a business you can keep (accurate) diaries of things like visitor numbers, spend, footfall and so on and you have some data to show to council about how it's affected you / your business. Anecdotes don't count for a lot...

[redpost]

You were consulted when you voted for this government:

Making traffic regulation orders during coronavirus (COVID-19): https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/making-traffic-regulation-orders-during-coronavirus-covid-19

Yes, you may disagree, but the government has made these emergency orders for the purposes of the GREATER GOOD specifically:

a) reduce load on public transport by making walking and cycling easier

b) increase social distancing with larger pedestrian areas

c) get people to lose weight

dougiefreeman Wrote:

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

> stecoward101 Wrote:

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

> -----

> > 2 Points here

> >

> > 1. 'Who says we want a rat run?' If you had

> been

> > consulted on that question would you have said

> > yes.

> >

> > 2. The business' don't want a consultation. If

> you

> > look at the posters in their windows there is

> not

> > a single word about consultation. They want the

> > planters removed.

> >

> > Can I again reiterate Cars can still access the

> > shops but now only one way.

> >

> > Thanks for reading.

>

> Just in response to your second point.

> In order to have a properly consulted conversation

> about this, the planters need to first be removed

> - they should never have been installed without a

> proper consultation in the first place and so you

> can understand why businesses are prioritising

> using their voice to lobby first for the reversal

> of these measures.

>

> It may of course, after consultation, turn out

> that the overwhelming majority are in favour (I

> doubt it) and then the planters can be installed

> with the backing of a proper democratic process.

> But since there has been no such democratic

> process as of yet they really should be removed

> until the council set one up.

>

> Would you be in favour of parliament deciding on a

> prime minister and then asking the public

> afterwards to vote on whether they approve or not?

[dougiefreeman]

redpost Wrote:

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

> You were consulted when you voted for this

> government:

>

> Making traffic regulation orders during

> coronavirus (COVID-19):

> https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/making-

> traffic-regulation-orders-during-coronavirus-covid

> -19

>

> Yes, you may disagree, but the government has made

> these emergency orders for the purposes of the

> GREATER GOOD specifically:

>

> a) reduce load on public transport by making

> walking and cycling easier

> b) increase social distancing with larger

> pedestrian areas

> c) get people to lose weight

>

>

> dougiefreeman Wrote:

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

> -----

> > stecoward101 Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > 2 Points here

> > >

> > > 1. 'Who says we want a rat run?' If you had

> > been

> > > consulted on that question would you have

> said

> > > yes.

> > >

> > > 2. The business' don't want a consultation.

> If

> > you

> > > look at the posters in their windows there is

> > not

> > > a single word about consultation. They want

> the

> > > planters removed.

> > >

> > > Can I again reiterate Cars can still access

> the

> > > shops but now only one way.

> > >

> > > Thanks for reading.

> >

> > Just in response to your second point.

> > In order to have a properly consulted

> conversation

> > about this, the planters need to first be

> removed

> > - they should never have been installed without

> a

> > proper consultation in the first place and so

> you

> > can understand why businesses are prioritising

> > using their voice to lobby first for the

> reversal

> > of these measures.

> >

> > It may of course, after consultation, turn out

> > that the overwhelming majority are in favour (I

> > doubt it) and then the planters can be

> installed

> > with the backing of a proper democratic

> process.

> > But since there has been no such democratic

> > process as of yet they really should be removed

> > until the council set one up.

> >

> > Would you be in favour of parliament deciding on

> a

> > prime minister and then asking the public

> > afterwards to vote on whether they approve or

> not?

I did not vote for this government.

Those TROs do not give Southwark Council carte blanche to make snap ill-thought out decisions without considering the adverse effects it may have on local businesses - whatever the benefits may be. The transport sec has already had to step in where the powers have been abused in other boroughs. Here: https://road.cc/content/news/shapps-tells-councils-stop-abusing-funding-277095

[spider69]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8710077/Berlins-left-wing-officials-ordered-remove-cycle-lanes-installed-pandemic-court.html

This makes interesting reading. Would it effect Southwarks decisions

[FairTgirl]

Well stecoward101 you may have shocked everyone and done more than the council have by actually asking what the businesses might want. You may be my new best friend.

*I only speak for myself* but I am not keen on rat runs. I am a mum of Primary school age children in East Dulwich and have the same concerns about pollution and traffic. My children will probably attend ED Charter.

I think there are options, eg if bollards (which we have been advised could have been illegally placed and hence should be removed ahead of an actual proper consultation) or similar are agreeable, they could be placed further down Melbourne Grove allowing vehicular access to the businesses and school (if necessary) from the Grove Vale end.

The school, who we have approached regards their concerns on pupil safety could be satisfied, there would be no or less through traffic from the Grove Vale end, covering where 90% of the residents homes are.

The school are also looking at closing the road south of Jarvis Road which could trap residents, customers, business owners and delivery vehicles if the current bollards on Melbourne Grove/Grove Vale stay and this would cause more traffic issues at the East Dulwich Grove end of Melbourne Grove.

Extra ideas could be turning Elsie/Derwent into one way roads to keep (much reduced) traffic moving through but without overloading the surrounding roads.

I stress these are just my ideas and just specific to these roads.

Guess this almost constitutes a consultation.... if only we could all have been having conversations like this prior to this action eh?

Quite clever of the council getting us to do their job for them?

[Rockets]

ExDulwicher - you make some very salient points in your post, many of which I completely agree with. The biggest problem the council has right now is two-fold: one of credibility the other of carpet bombing.

The credibility narrative, or lack thereof, was set some while ago with the CPZ "consultations" when the council was felt, by many, to have railroaded their plans for East Dulwich through against the will of the majority of residents across East Dulwich. They were seen to manipulate the system to their advantage (and the benefit of those most vocal advocates), tried to dampen any dissenting voices (I remember very well the debacle of the CPZ meeting at the library) and tried to divide and conquer the naysayers.

Then came the OHS "consultation" and the plans for Dulwich Village and the voices of dissent became more vocal but once again the council used the myriad of tactics at their disposal to try to silence the voices.

Then came Covid and everything changed. Even the most ardent petrolhead could see that car usage would increase on the back of the fallout and things would need to change. But instead of creating new Covid plans the council just said - "we're going ahead with those plans that were already in the hopper". AT the same time they neglected any of the most pressing needs of the area such as providing social distancing on Lordship Lane.

The perception was that with the TROs the council said, right, "here's our opportunity" and they misjudged the mood of the majority of the people. They carpet bombed closure plans left, right and centre and people said, "hang on a minute - we have lives to live and we are the ones being impacted by this". Then came OneDulwich and this galvanised cross-Dulwich support for people who wanted a more balanced discussion and finally there was a group that could not be ignored by the council.

Suddenly, those who felt they were being overlooked and ignored had a voice. At the same time the advocates for change were dancing in the nearly formed squares and heralding the end of the car and beginning of the cycling nirvana many dreamed of. This antagonised a lot of people whose day to day live was being disrupted by the closures.

It was clear that the first round of DV closures had created more congestion and pollution and that was before schools returned and people even thought about returning to work. Meanwhile the council pushed forward with the plans for more closures (yet acknowledged they had received a lot of negative feedback).

So here we are today with a council that has created a lot of the problems for itself and much of it comes down to a lack of communication with the constituents and they face a massive uphill battle trying to convince a lot of people that what they are doing is in everyone's best interests. People don't trust them.

Everyone I am meeting at the moment is saying the same thing: "What has the council done to the traffic" and not "The traffic is a lot worse due to Covid". And that is a very deep political hole to try and climb out of.

You rightly say that there isn't one single thing to get us out of the conundrum but the problem is that the council has used a single instrument to try and resolve it and it is a blunt one at that.

[FairTgirl]

Thanks dougiefreeman - hit nail in the head as far as I am concerned

[exdulwicher]

So here we are today with a council that has created a lot of the problems for itself and much of it comes down to a lack of communication with the constituents and they face a massive uphill battle trying to convince a lot of people that what they are doing is in everyone's best interests. People don't trust them.

Rockets - you hit the nail on the head in your last sentence there.

Trust in politics is at an all time low. We've got a Government that lives day-to-day on lies, U-Turns, slogans, simple answers to complex problems, incompetence and self-interest.

The councils (believe it or not) are not as bad but it comes under the same general feeling of not trusting politicians.

The consultation thing is a bit of a dead cat to be honest - the timeframes and legislation mean that it has to be done alongside the changes, not in advance of them. However the impression that it gives (rightly or wrongly) is of changes being railroaded through which erodes trust and you're in a Catch-22...

[treetop]

At the moment poor air quality is reducing life expectancy and causing ill health to many of us and our children. It was shown to increase likelihood of being ill from Covid. We need to reduce car use and closing roads to encourage pedestrians and cycling is one way of doing this. I hope the Council will make their case to local residents.