Urgent: Help Reopen Closed Melbourne Grove and adjacent roads

[thebestnameshavegone]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> 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.

The road isn't closed. None of the roads are closed. You can still drive your brum brum where you like. It might take longer. But if the journey is indeed 'essential', that shouldn't be too much of an issue.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

"it is a minority of petrol-heads making a lot of noise."

Tbf you should probably get that exhaust looked at, it is very loud.

[Spartacus]

stecoward101 Wrote:

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

>

> I am not sure how you equate 8% as pretty

> convincing support. I would consider 92% not

> signing it as more convincing.

>

I believe the CPZ was introduced by less people supporting it so to knock a thousand signature petition is like blowing raspberries in people's faces

Still I look forward to your counter petition to see how many actually support the changes made by the council.

If you think it will be 92% then put your money where your mouth is and start a supporting one.

[exdulwicher]

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

Yeah, statistics don't work like that! ^^

Petitions are interesting and most councils will give them lip service while trying their best to ignore them because they can be horrendously biased. There's a genuine art in creating a petition that does not lead the respondent to giving the "desired" answers from whichever side of the fence you're on and most petitions created, including a lot on Change.Org (because anyone can create a petition on there) fall foul of that and then can be ignored for that very reason.

Thank you for your petition, unfortunately it was a load of biased crap and we've therefore filed it in the bin".

I've posted this clip before on other threads but it's worth highlighting - how to create "leading" opinion polls/surveys:

[Rockets]

thebestnameshavegone Wrote:

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

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

> > 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.

>

> The road isn't closed. None of the roads are

> closed. You can still drive your brum brum where

> you like. It might take longer. But if the journey

> is indeed 'essential', that shouldn't be too much

> of an issue.

But they are closed to through-traffic aren't they?

Whilst I hate the Daily Mail there is certainly a nationwide campaign starting against these closures and it will gain more and more momentum. The more people who become aware of it the more pressure will be heaped on councils to justify what they are doing and why they are doing it and they will have to prove it is having a positive impact. Previously they had carte blanche to put these things in place with little or no justification because there were only a few dissenting voices - the good thing now is there will have to be transparency where before there was none.

If I was a betting man I think the council will end-up having to remove some of the closures - and then the pro-closure lobbies can fight amongst themselves over which roads re-open again! The folly was doing everything at once as the first closure in DV had a negative impact on EDG and now they have closed Melbourne it is making it even worse and each closure is amplifying the problem.

When the timed closures in DV come in that will push huge amounts of traffic down Croxted Road and the A205 and Lordship Lane it's only going to get worse again.

The council are chasing the displacement and that is a very slippery path.

[thebestnameshavegone]

You can still drive round, if there's something essential for you in Melbourne Grove?

There is no 'nationwide campaign' - a newspaper, worried about falling ad revenue, has to present any story as something incendiary, or a 'fury' to get clicks.

The amount of vehicles on the roads has doubled in the last 30 years, which isn't sustainable - so if you're upset about the volume of traffic now, unless more drastic measures are taken pretty soon it will get far, far worse.

[Rockets]

thebestnameshavegone Wrote:

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

> You can still drive round, if there's something

> essential for you in Melbourne Grove?

>

> There is no 'nationwide campaign' - a newspaper,

> worried about falling ad revenue, has to present

> any story as something incendiary, or a 'fury' to

> get clicks.

>

> The amount of vehicles on the roads has doubled in

> the last 30 years, which isn't sustainable - so if

> you're upset about the volume of traffic now,

> unless more drastic measures are taken pretty soon

> it will get far, far worse.

But it's interesting isn't it, Southwark has one of the lowest car uses of all the London boroughs and the data presented (and then manipulated by the council for their own benefits) showed, quite clearly that there had been a gradual decline in the number of car journeys through the DV junction across 5 or so years.

I think you will find there is a nationwide campaign beginning to grow - there is a lot of publicity about these closures in a broad range of media (I saw a piece on BBC London News some weeks ago on the same subject) and the more people who read or hear about it the more people likely to say "hang on a minute" and may question what is happening. It's the very essence of a grass roots campaign. Look at One Dulwich and the support they have. Look at the similar community-led action programmes all across London trying to get a more balanced and sensible approach to the problems. The councils have to do something to re-control the narrative else they will lose it completely and that has dire consequences for everyone - for or against.

[exdulwicher]

The council are chasing the displacement and that is a very slippery path.

They're not because there hasn't been time to examine the outcome, propose further mitigation and implement it.

It's just the phasing of the agreed plans as they don't have the resources to put everything in at once, it's all going in over the space of about a month or so. That's the same nationally by the way, I don't have any behind the scenes insight into Southwark other than what is on their website.

[Rockets]

exdulwicher Wrote:

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

> The council are chasing the displacement and that

> is a very slippery path.

>

> They're not because there hasn't been time to

> examine the outcome, propose further mitigation

> and implement it.

>

> It's just the phasing of the agreed plans as they

> don't have the resources to put everything in at

> once, it's all going in over the space of about a

> month or so. That's the same nationally by the

> way, I don't have any behind the scenes insight

> into Southwark other than what is on their

> website.

Were the closures of the roads surrounding Melbourne Grove part of the OHS plan?

I am not sure how anyone can expect to drop a load of closures on a small area and not have a massively detrimental impact - or perhaps they don't care.

On that point does aynone know whether other parts of Southwark are getting such concentrated clusters of road closures in a small area or has Dulwich been singled out for special attention?

[stecoward101]

@Spaticus - I am not sure I need to set up a petition as the road is blocked off, which is what the community needs.

However, I do mot think that 92% of he population would sign a counter petition as a some people do not have an opinion

on the closure.

I am bored of pointless questions.

[stecoward101]

@Rockets 'and then manipulated by the council for their own benefit'. Why would a council manipulate the data. They want to reduce the number of cars.

It does not matter If Southwark have a lower car use than most other boroughs as if it is still high then you need to do something.

rockets, this is not rocket science.

[Rockets]

exdulwicher Wrote:

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

> I am not sure how you equate 8% as pretty

> convincing support. I would consider 92% not

> signing it as more convincing.

>

> Yeah, statistics don't work like that! ^^

>

> Petitions are interesting and most councils will

> give them lip service while trying their best to

> ignore them because they can be horrendously

> biased. There's a genuine art in creating a

> petition that does not lead the respondent to

> giving the "desired" answers from whichever side

> of the fence you're on and most petitions created,

> including a lot on Change.Org (because anyone can

> create a petition on there) fall foul of that and

> then can be ignored for that very reason.

>

> Thank you for your petition, unfortunately it was

> a load of biased crap and we've therefore filed it

> in the bin".

>

> I've posted this clip before on other threads but

> it's worth highlighting - how to create "leading"

> opinion polls/surveys:

>

It's ironic that councils will pay lip service to petitions due to them being flawed yet themselves create surveys and consultations that include some of the most biased and leading questions you will ever see! ;-) Trying to leave anything other than a glowing endorsement of their street closures is a battle in itself, although I notice they had edited it recently to give it more balance but version one was like Henry Kissinger addressing the media: "Does anyone have any questions for my answers."

[exdulwicher]

On that point does aynone know whether other parts of Southwark are getting such concentrated clusters of road closures in a small area or has Dulwich been singled out for special attention?

A fair chunk gone in around Walworth/Newington, an LTN within the estate between the Kennington Underground Station and Walworth Road.

And further up the road in Lambeth is the Oval LTN.

[Rockets]

I wonder if we are particularly unlucky to get such a concentrated cluster in a small area, seemingly without any co-ordination between the local councillors on negative impact (although they did, of course, acknowledge during their door-to-door lobbying of the streets targeted for closure that there would be significant displacement).

[FairTgirl]

The question has been put and we hope to recieve some clear answers on how many houses and who was visited by whom and when, prior to these road closures as some houses definitely were visited by at least one councillor, by their own admission.

Southwark Council and thus councillors have all of the businesses email addresses and postal addresses as they all pay business rates and they didn't email any of them. You don't have to leave your house to send an email.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

"If I was a betting man I think the council will end-up having to remove some of the closures"

That's not much of a gamble. It would be remarkable if they all stayed. They're temporary and experimental. Some of them will fail - others will become redundant because the short term issue they were responding to has disappeared (eg COVID is over so no social distancing so no need for wider pavements).

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

"Southwark has one of the lowest car uses of all the London boroughs"

Well, yeah - Southwark is one of the most densely populated boroughs in London and the UK, and 31% of residents live in poverty. Of course its residents are going to drive less than people in Bromley or Hillingdon: the distances are smaller, there is less road space, there is less room to park, car insurance is expensive, and the traffic is worse. It's all those factors that mean even if there were zero local pollution from vehicles, we would still have to wrestle with congestion.

[Abe_froeman]

We ended up with this small cluster to create a corridor so that people could cycle from 418 chinese restaurant to Kwik Fit.

[exdulwicher]

Southwark has one of the lowest car uses of all the London boroughs

The problem with that stat is that "Southwark" covers nearly 29 square km of everything from deprived areas, ongoing regeneration and very affluent areas and there's a marked change in urban geography and demographic between say, Elephant & Castle and Dulwich Village.

Dulwich itself has one of the highest levels of car ownership within the borough but if you take some of the areas of North Southwark with the lowest levels of car ownership and than get an average across the entire borough, it appears lower.

[rupert james]

How does Southwark get these numbers. Direct from DVLA registration or off an from official must complete survey in the borough census.

Have to admit when I have been through the so called poor areas there are many many expensive cars being driven by young people and parked up.

Makes you wonder if these surveys are worth the effort and are the truth.

[alice]

36% of Southwark children live in poverty. That means family income is below ?19000.

[exdulwicher]

rupert james Wrote:

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

> How does Southwark get these numbers. Direct from

> DVLA registration or off an from official must

> complete survey in the borough census.

>

> Have to admit when I have been through the so

> called poor areas there are many many expensive

> cars being driven by young people and parked up.

>

> Makes you wonder if these surveys are worth the

> effort and are the truth.

https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/boroughs-and-communities/southwark

https://www.london.gov.uk/in-my-area/southwark

Plus census data and voting records. DVLA would sell them the car registration info if they asked for it as well.

Travel data is from Oyster Cards, contactless and season tickets.

when I have been through the so called poor areas there are many many expensive cars being driven by young people and parked up.

[stereotype] They're the local drug dealers [/stereotype] ;-)

[rupert james]

Thanks for reply.

So if they did not put down they own a car/cars no one would know?

Not sure what oysters cards etc have to do with owning a car, could just be parked up until it is used and use public transport in during day.

So the census would be meaningless and who owns what would never be be apparent.

Plenty of room for adjustments to fit the requirement.

[Rockets]

stecoward101 Wrote:

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

> @Rockets 'and then manipulated by the council for

> their own benefit'. Why would a council manipulate

> the data. They want to reduce the number of cars.

>

>

> It does not matter If Southwark have a lower car

> use than most other boroughs as if it is still

> high then you need to do something.

>

> rockets, this is not rocket science.

The council manipulated the data to convince people there was a 46% increase of traffic through the DV junction to create a mandate to have it closed. It was a lie and blatant manipulation of the data to create public support for their changes. Traffic through the DV junction had been going down year on year and the only increase was that of pollution after they changed the junction layout during the first OHS "improvements".

No, it's not rocket science - the council probably hope that it was as the problem for them is when non-rocket scientists like myself scratch a little beneath the surface they can expose where the council has been trying to hoodwink the constituents!

[Rockets]

Here the full league table of car sinners from TFL - for some reason it pastes upside down so Islington is the best and Bexley the worst!

Islington

Tower Hamlets

Hackney

Westminster

Haringey

Hammersmith & Fulham

Southwark

Newham

Camden

Lambeth

Lewisham

Waltham Forest

Kensington & Chelsea

Wandsworth

Brent

Barking & Dagenham

Enfield

Hounslow

Ealing

Redbridge

Greenwich

Richmond upon Thames

Merton

Kingston upon Thames

Croydon

Havering

Bromley

Harrow

Barnet

Hillingdon

Sutton

Bexley

BTW did anyone see the ITV 6 o'clock local news - big segment on the controversy of the LTNs using the stuck fire engine in Brixton as the catalyst for the story. Someone has organised a march to Brixton Town Hall to protest. The news item said there were 160 LTNs put in in the last few weeks across the capital. Interesting that the mayor's office rolled out a spokesperson rather than Lambeth immediately elevating the story to mayoral responsibility rather than local council.

The issue is getting more and more attention.