Pavement widening outside M&S nr East Dulwich station...

[teddyboy23]

4 hours ago, first mate said:

Melbourne Grove S is literally right next to the station, you have just mentioned it yourself. 

 As to whether people have 'gotten used to' the road being blocked off to traffic, I beg to differ. I think they just have no choice but to work with it, as that decision was made for us, not really with us.

The document shows works along much of the main route into ED. Do you think this will not cause disruption? That is on top of all the other ongoing roadworks? That is why I asked if anyone knew the timeframe for all this to be completed?

A few shop keepers mentioned works finished by may.i passed through grove vale about an hour ago not sure but thepavement looked done?

.

Just now, teddyboy23 said:

A few shop keepers mentioned works finished by may.i passed through grove vale about an hour ago not sure but thepavement looked done? Outside marks

.

 

[Cancerian]

12 hours ago, march46 said:

The work is looking great so far. Conways are cracking through it quickly and to the same high finish that they did in Dulwich Village. 

Same high finish? They’ve ruined Dulwich Village!

[ianr]

15 hours ago, first mate said:

Melbourne Grove S is literally right next to the station, you have just mentioned it yourself. 

Why the S?

[first mate]

The S is for south. This is a council invention. When they did their first CPZ consultation for the area, they promised that no road with a majority against CPZ would be made to have it. The majority of Melbourne Grove was against CPZ, so the council divided the road into two, Melbourne Grove South and Melbourne Grove North. This enabled them to get CPZ into the Southern end of the road.

[northernmonkey]

MG - the bit near the station is north  and the bit between ED Grove and Lordship Lane is South.  

Hopefully that helps people work out which bit is being discussed. 

[first mate]

Yes, you are quite right, I had them back to front. So when I have referred to MGS, I actually meant MGN.

[Zak]

So, the one of the main reasons that Southwark gives for all the pavement widening which is taking place  on Grove Vale is to make our  streets more  pedestrian friendly. Well…….

Thinking about how this is going to work in practice, it strikes me that:unfortunately:

* lovely wide pavements are going to encourage even more people to cycle down them at speed  on their electric bikes or scooters..

* some of these people will find it even easier to snatch phones and make off at speed

* there will be an increase risk of pedestrians getting hit and possibly seriously injured (a friend of ours was recently hit by an electric bike while walking on a pavement and sustained a broken leg) 

Sorry  to be negative about what is in many ways an improvement but it comes with risks that are currently unmanaged. 

 

 

[Sue]

8 hours ago, Zak said:

So, the one of the main reasons that Southwark gives for all the pavement widening which is taking place  on Grove Vale is to make our  streets more  pedestrian friendly. Well…….

Thinking about how this is going to work in practice, it strikes me that:unfortunately:

* lovely wide pavements are going to encourage even more people to cycle down them at speed  on their electric bikes or scooters..

* some of these people will find it even easier to snatch phones and make off at speed

* there will be an increase risk of pedestrians getting hit and possibly seriously injured (a friend of ours was recently hit by an electric bike while walking on a pavement and sustained a broken leg) 

Sorry  to be negative about what is in many ways an improvement but it comes with risks that are currently unmanaged. 

 

 

That really is an extremely negative view!

So you think any initiatives to improve things for pedestrians should be banned?

Do you think we should go back to horses and carts because motor vehicles cause accidents and pollution?

It's a matter of weighing up the advantages against the disadvantages, surely?

[Penguin68]

2 hours ago, Sue said:

That really is an extremely negative view!

So you think any initiatives to improve things for pedestrians should be banned?

I think this is somewhat unfair - it is entirely reasonable to worry about unintended consequences of actions however well-meaning in intent (if these were!). Even 10 years ago I would not have worried that widened pavements would become a thoroughfare for bikes, let alone electric powered ones, yet we see this increasingly across the borough. And the growth of bike-assisted mugging is certainly also a thing. At least sticking to the far side of the pavement (away from the road side) was a protection, but perhaps less so now. Either of these cannot be argued by anyone, even surely the cycling lobby, to be 'an improvement' for pedestrians.

Edited Friday at 10:17 by Penguin68

[Sue]

36 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

I think this is somewhat unfair - it is entirely reasonable to worry about unintended consequences of actions however well-meaning in intent (if these were!). Even 10 years ago I would not have worried that widened pavements would become a thoroughfare for bikes, let alone electric powered ones, yet we see this increasingly across the borough. And the growth of bike-assisted mugging is certainly also a thing. At least sticking to the far side of the pavement (away from the road side) was a protection, but perhaps less so now. Either of these cannot be argued by anyone, even surely the cycling lobby, to be 'an improvement' for pedestrians.

No, but as I said, it is a matter of weighing up the advantages against the disadvantages, in this case to pedestrians.

So do you think that the disadvantages in this case, as identified by Zak, outweigh the advantages to such a degree that the initiative should not be happening at all?

I agree that appropriate action should be taken where possible to mitigate the effect of the disadvantages, but that is different to not proceeding at all?

Edited Friday at 10:55 by Sue

[Earl Aelfheah]

It's been suggested across a number of threads now, that pedestrian crossings, removal of street clutter, and the widening of pavements is somehow detrimental to pedestrians because of the 'scourge' of cyclists. It's notable that it's the same people who also rail against any improvements to cycle infrastructure, who argue against improved pedestrian space and the enforcement of laws relating to motor vehicles (bus lane restrictions, 20mph zones, ULEZ etc). A cynic might think that in reality they just want cars to be prioritised in all circumstances and it's not really about pedestrian safety, or the safety of those travelling by bicycle, both of which are improved by bike lanes, pedestrian crossings and speeding and pollution regulations and enforcement. 

[Penguin68]

59 minutes ago, Sue said:

So do you think that the disadvantages in this case, as identified by Zak, outweigh the advantages to such a degree that the initiative should not be happening at all?

I agree that appropriate action should be taken where possible to mitigate the effect of the disadvantages, but that is different to not proceeding at all?

This is an expensive piece of work at a time when local authorities are cash strapped. Unlike the work being done at the junction of the South Circular with Lordship Lane and London Road, which follows at least 20 years of local agitation in favour of safe pedestrian crossings there I know of no local requests for wider pavements outside the new M&S. (Happy to stand corrected). And certainly no reports of near misses or worse - so close to a controlled crossing place. So not proceeding at all would certainly be an option for what appears to be works not a response to public outcry but (possibly) part of (widely known) an anti-car policy being pursued by the council. This is very much, at best, a 'nice to' not a 'need to' exercise. 

[Moovart]

All seems to be progressing pretty smoothly really.  Let's hope it heralds an East Dulwich pavement improvement programme all the way up the shopping part of Lordship Lane where the pavements are being lifted and sunk by the very young (less than 25yrs in most cases) but already massive Plane trees.  ☹️

[Sue]

3 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

This is an expensive piece of work at a time when local authorities are cash strapped. Unlike the work being done at the junction of the South Circular with Lordship Lane and London Road, which follows at least 20 years of local agitation in favour of safe pedestrian crossings there I know of no local requests for wider pavements outside the new M&S. (Happy to stand corrected). And certainly no reports of near misses or worse - so close to a controlled crossing place. So not proceeding at all would certainly be an option for what appears to be works not a response to public outcry but (possibly) part of (widely known) an anti-car policy being pursued by the council. This is very much, at best, a 'nice to' not a 'need to' exercise. 

Sorry to be dim, and sorry if I've missed it, but how could  widening the pavement in a place of heavy pedestrian use be part of a council anti car policy?

[Penguin68]

Needs to be taken in context with the adjacent road closure as part of the LTN initiative in general not supported, some would suggest, by all those living in the roads so closed. 

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

t's been suggested across a number of threads now, that pedestrian crossings, removal of street clutter, and the widening of pavements is somehow detrimental to pedestrians because of the 'scourge' of cyclists.

To be fair I think some are critical in the cases where the removal of "street clutter" a.k.a "pedestrian refuges" has been stated as part of the council's plan to facilitate cycle infrastructure.

BTW did the mooted street market on Melbourne Grove ever materialise?

[first mate]

Not yet, but who knows what might be on the horizon. Wasn't a late licence mooted for something on MG North at some point?