Urgent: Help Reopen Closed Melbourne Grove and adjacent roads

[ED_moots]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> 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.

Rockets is right, it's here in black and white.

http://moderngov.southwarksites.com/documents/s89803/Report%20Streetspace%20Plan.pdf

Southwark looking to reduce car use by 50% and using the excuse of covid lockdown (which we're no longer in) for doing so.

It's an ambitious target but their decisions, planning and execution are very poor. Doing everything at once (cpz, ltns) while trains are being avoided by many and buses unreliable on the even more clogged up arterial routes. No modelling or data to inform likely outcomes. No upfront communication and then only of decisions made without consultations. No dialogue once decisions implemented. Ignoring businesses which have had a horrid year. There is traffic volume monitoring happening but no air quality (before and after) especially on the roads which have got much worse (which have many residents and schools).

There seems to be a 'we know what's best for you (and our coffers) ' attitude from southwark.

I would support a strategy which would reduce unnecessary car use and pollution in East Dulwich. Extension of ULEZ is more equitible and the EV revolution will see improvements long term. These hyperlocal measures do not serve the community as a whole imo.

[TheCropolite]

Well I?m glad there are others who think closing roads is a strategy worth trying to reduce car usage. I was loosing the will to live...

[ED_moots]

exdulwicher Wrote:

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

> 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:

>

> https://image.slidesharecdn.com/badnewscycle-15101

> 5144811-lva1-app6891/95/bad-news-cycle-el-ciclo-de

> -malas-noticias-1-638.jpg?cb=1444920800

>

> 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...

You get a better response to change when you have buy-in from those affected. Prove your case, explain what you're doing and facilitate recourse. Don't hide.

[ab29]

Closing roads is a terrible idea - all its achived is that the fewer roads are now used by the same number of vehicles. People living on the roads with extra traffic are treated like guinea pigs. And with an extra dose of air and noise pollution.

[exdulwicher]

You get a better response to change when you have buy-in from those affected. Prove your case, explain what you're doing and facilitate recourse. Don't hide.

Yes and no. People fear change and on anything contentious like traffic management, the general response is one of resistance and resentment. Consultation happens, vocal resistance is met, proposal gets watered down, re-submitted, vocal resistance is met and so on. Eventually, what happens is so light-touch that it only succeeds in annoying people and not delivering any of the originally promised benefits.

A far better (and cheaper) way of doing things is to just tell people what you're doing and why, implement the changes, consult as you go and you get to actually SEE the changes from the start (disruption, traffic jams) right through to the final result (acceptance, lowered traffic etc) without relying on traffic models. The advantages are that it's temporary and cheap. If it doesn't work, you don't need to call in construction crews and dig the entire road up again, you just move a few planters. If it sort of works in some areas but not others, you can tweak it reasonably easily.

You'll still get resistance - you always will no matter how many consultations you carry out - but this is quicker and cheaper. Eventually, by a mix of ongoing consultation, traffic / pollution monitoring, traffic modelling and actual physical data of what is happening right there on the roads gives you a far better picture of what works and why than just trying to rebuild one junction or block off one road. Honestly, this should be the standard method of doing this, not the constant back-and-forth of proposal -> consultation -> counter proposal -> further consultation...

Long term, it's far less disruptive and far cheaper and gives better modelling info.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

"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..."

OneDulwich galvanised a lobby that had never previously espoused any concern about air pollution in Dulwich but were really upset when they couldn't drive their car to the shops.

[TheCropolite]

exdulwicher Wrote:

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

> You get a better response to change when you have

> buy-in from those affected. Prove your case,

> explain what you're doing and facilitate recourse.

> Don't hide.

>

> Yes and no. People fear change and on anything

> contentious like traffic management, the general

> response is one of resistance and resentment.

> Consultation happens, vocal resistance is met,

> proposal gets watered down, re-submitted, vocal

> resistance is met and so on. Eventually, what

> happens is so light-touch that it only succeeds in

> annoying people and not delivering any of the

> originally promised benefits.

>

> A far better (and cheaper) way of doing things is

> to just tell people what you're doing and why,

> implement the changes, consult as you go and you

> get to actually SEE the changes from the start

> (disruption, traffic jams) right through to the

> final result (acceptance, lowered traffic etc)

> without relying on traffic models. The advantages

> are that it's temporary and cheap. If it doesn't

> work, you don't need to call in construction crews

> and dig the entire road up again, you just move a

> few planters. If it sort of works in some areas

> but not others, you can tweak it reasonably

> easily.

>

> You'll still get resistance - you always will no

> matter how many consultations you carry out - but

> this is quicker and cheaper. Eventually, by a mix

> of ongoing consultation, traffic / pollution

> monitoring, traffic modelling and actual physical

> data of what is happening right there on the roads

> gives you a far better picture of what works and

> why than just trying to rebuild one junction or

> block off one road. Honestly, this should be the

> standard method of doing this, not the constant

> back-and-forth of proposal -> consultation ->

> counter proposal -> further consultation...

>

> Long term, it's far less disruptive and far

> cheaper and gives better modelling info.

Spot on, very well said.

[andrewc]

Agreed.

[Rockets]

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

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

> "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..."

>

> OneDulwich galvanised a lobby that had never

> previously espoused any concern about air

> pollution in Dulwich but were really upset when

> they couldn't drive their car to the shops.

Nonsense. What they did was take an area wide community-led approach and hit upon a vein of anti-closure sentiment brought upon by the myopic and biased approach to the CPZ and OHS taken by the council across multiple wards in the area. The council presented flawed presentation after presentation full of manipulated and misleading data to try and prove their point during the CPZ and OHS consultations and people lost their trust in the council.

One Dulwich and its supporters agree that something has to be done but doesn?t agree with the way it is being done and felt that the measures put in place will make things worse rather than better (remember, you can expect about 11% reduction in car use). The council thought that the voices of a few streets and twitter accounts benefitting from the closures would drown out the negative sentiment that they had been trying to dilute by dividing and conquering. They did it with the CPZ (68% against dont forget) and were trying it again with OHS. One Dulwich has over 1300 named people (none of them children from families from the closure lobby...ahem Southwark council....) supporting a mandate to push for a fairer and more balanced approach to the challenge. The council cannot ignore them. Awareness is at an all time high and you can?t walk down Lordship Lane for hearing people talking about the negative impact of the closures.

Everyone can see for themselves the additional congestion this is causing and even if that congestion would have been seen without the road closures due to a Covid that doesn?t matter now because the council is having to own it for the ham-fisted way they have handled this and previous projects.

They are reaping what they have sowed and my biggest concern is that this may well do real damage to properly dealing with the pollution crisis as no-one will trust them again.

[stecoward101]

Sometimes government (national or regional) need to make unpopular decisions for the benefit of the people. People don't like change and if this fear was followed then nothing would ever happen.

Once people realise it is quicker to walk/cycle then they will do this.

There also has been a big push to get people back on trains as they have made them so they enforce social distancing however as you say people don't want to use them despite this information.

For those on the board who keep referring to the past I thought I would add a quote from Churchill 'Democracy is the worst form of government'.

Also if you are under 50 and are healthy you would be unlucky to get properly ill from the virus ironically you are more likely to die in a road traffic accident.

Have a great day.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Why would closing a street to motor traffic reduce footfall? Anyway, I hope business picks up, I wish you the best.

[Penguin68]

I would add a quote from Churchill 'Democracy is the worst form of government'.

Actually the full Churchillian quote is ?democracy is the worst form of government ? except for all the others that have been tried.? - (my emphasis) so rather the opposite of the point you were making.

[stecoward101]

I was going to type the full Churchill Quote but I thought I would let someone have the opportunity to do this.

[FairTgirl]

Posted by rahrahrah Today, 07:10AM

Why would closing a street to motor traffic reduce footfall? Anyway, I hope business picks up, I wish you the best.

reply:

Hi, I don't think this has been closed just to monitor the traffic, as far as we know there are no traffic monitors on Grove Vale. If there are I would love to be wrong on this matter. It would show an attempt to at least gather some data now.

And yes it is having an affect. We all have data, eg footfall and sales so we can tell empirically.

TBH I am a mystified as to how the placement of the bollards at Melbourne Grove/Grove Vale is helping the residents acheive their aim for lower traffic and pollution as cars are still driving past them to get to the businesses. Far better for the 'experiment' to have placed them where the businesses stop and residential houses and school start and they may find they have no cars coming down except for access at all.

Perhaps if there had been a discussion with the businesses this better option regards this trial may have cropped up.

[stecoward101]

@FairTGIrl - Melbourne Grove was a rat run to cut off the roundabout on Lordship lane. Motorists were 'zooming' down a street with a school. It has made a world of difference.

[JohnL]

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??

2 Hours unfortunately - I suspect I may have been slightly over it last weekend :(.

I've kept my ?140 sainsburys bill just in case as they usually let you off if you have one.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

"remember, you can expect about 11% reduction in car use)"

An 11% reduction in car usage in one fell swoop would be a huge achievement. It just goes to show how many of those journeys weren't critical. Remember also that the reductions are cumulative - so the next traffic scheme in the next neighbourhood will reduce car journeys by another 11%.

OneDulwich professes to be really, really concerned about congestion and pollution, but they want an overnight solution that solves all problems and without inconvenience. It ain't gonna happen.

[Rockets]

But where does the other 89% of traffic go that can no longer use the roads that are now closed? By that reckoning about 6,000 cars that used to use the DV junction will now be looking for another route. Therein lies the point....

[Spartacus]

It strikes me that the more voices and support that the petition https://www.change.org/p/helen-hayes-help-us-to-stop-the-road-closures-in-east-dulwich gets, the more vocal the anti car brigade are on here

Is it that they are seeing the tide turning in the opposite direction and that they are no longer the group shouting the loudest ?

Looks like, at present, the petition has nearly a thousand signatures which is about 8% of the total population of East Dulwich (based on 2011 census details) and considering it's focusing only on one small area that's pretty convincing support against the road closures in my opinion

[Pugwash]

I do not often go to Melbourne Grove and would not go in a car as always very hard to find parking spaces. Just as easy to get a bus and get off at Elsie Road or station depending which side of Melbourne Grove you wished to shop in.

[FairTgirl]

I'd say so! It is getting lots of support.

Signing the petition is NOT saying 'I want rat runs between East Dulwich and Dulwich Village '

It is NOT saying 'I want more cars, or I want more air pollution'

It IS saying, 'I want a proper debate on how this is done'

It IS saying 'I want joined up thinking and solutions that work for most'

It IS saying, 'I want clearer air for all, not just a few'

Sign here:

www.chng.it/k62TTfZD2G

[Otto2]

This.

exdulwicher Wrote:

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

> You get a better response to change when you have

> buy-in from those affected. Prove your case,

> explain what you're doing and facilitate recourse.

> Don't hide.

>

> Yes and no. People fear change and on anything

> contentious like traffic management, the general

> response is one of resistance and resentment.

> Consultation happens, vocal resistance is met,

> proposal gets watered down, re-submitted, vocal

> resistance is met and so on. Eventually, what

> happens is so light-touch that it only succeeds in

> annoying people and not delivering any of the

> originally promised benefits.

>

> A far better (and cheaper) way of doing things is

> to just tell people what you're doing and why,

> implement the changes, consult as you go and you

> get to actually SEE the changes from the start

> (disruption, traffic jams) right through to the

> final result (acceptance, lowered traffic etc)

> without relying on traffic models. The advantages

> are that it's temporary and cheap. If it doesn't

> work, you don't need to call in construction crews

> and dig the entire road up again, you just move a

> few planters. If it sort of works in some areas

> but not others, you can tweak it reasonably

> easily.

>

> You'll still get resistance - you always will no

> matter how many consultations you carry out - but

> this is quicker and cheaper. Eventually, by a mix

> of ongoing consultation, traffic / pollution

> monitoring, traffic modelling and actual physical

> data of what is happening right there on the roads

> gives you a far better picture of what works and

> why than just trying to rebuild one junction or

> block off one road. Honestly, this should be the

> standard method of doing this, not the constant

> back-and-forth of proposal -> consultation ->

> counter proposal -> further consultation...

>

> Long term, it's far less disruptive and far

> cheaper and gives better modelling info.

[stecoward101]

@Spartacus 'Looks like, at present, the petition has nearly a thousand signatures which is about 8% of the total population of East Dulwich (based on 2011 census details) and considering it's focusing only on one small area that's pretty convincing support against the road closures in my opinion'.

I am not sure how you equate 8% as pretty convincing support. I would consider 92% not signing it as more convincing.

What percentage would sign a petition to keep Melbourne Grove closed? and when I say closed, it bleeding well isn't. it has a barrier at one end so cars can still access it from the other side if they want/need to access the shops. I honestly cant understand why people don't get this. Well they probably do but that does not help their selfish argument.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

I was on EDG at about 5pm today, there wasn't any congestion at all. Is this kind of anecdata useful?

"the petition has nearly a thousand signatures which is about 8% of the total population of East Dulwich"

Yeah, but change.org petitions of any persuasion are a load of old tut. Those signatories aren't all East Dulwich residents (or even necessarily all real).

[Rockets]

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

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

> I was on EDG at about 5pm today, there wasn't any

> congestion at all. Is this kind of anecdata

> useful?

>

> "the petition has nearly a thousand signatures

> which is about 8% of the total population of East

> Dulwich"

>

> Yeah, but change.org petitions of any persuasion

> are a load of old tut. Those signatories aren't

> all East Dulwich residents (or even necessarily

> all real).

Let's be honest, Change.org petitions are a lot more transparent than the consultation surveys the council conducts! ;-)

The thing that the pro-closure lobby doesn't seem to like right now is that there is a lot of dissent against the closures amongst a large swathe of the community and they seek to de-position and belittle to try and maintain the impression that everything is great and it is a minority of petrol-heads making a lot of noise. For the pro group they aren't that happy that the playing field is being levelled after having the council echo-chamber to themselves for so long.