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

[teddyboy23]

  On 07/04/2025 at 07:38, 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?

Expand  

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

.

  On 07/04/2025 at 11:56, 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

.

Expand  

 

[Cancerian]

  On 07/04/2025 at 08:40, 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. 

Expand  

Same high finish? They’ve ruined Dulwich Village!

[ianr]

  On 07/04/2025 at 07:38, first mate said:

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

Expand  

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]

  On 10/04/2025 at 22:57, 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. 

 

 

Expand  

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]

  On 11/04/2025 at 07:45, Sue said:

That really is an extremely negative view!

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

Expand  

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 April 11 by Penguin68

[Sue]

  On 11/04/2025 at 10:17, 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.

Expand  

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 April 11 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]

  On 11/04/2025 at 10:53, 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?

Expand  

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]

  On 11/04/2025 at 11:59, 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. 

Expand  

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]

  On 11/04/2025 at 11:26, 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.

Expand  

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? 

[malumbu]

  On 10/04/2025 at 22:57, 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. 

 

 

Expand  

Reminds me of being in the US many years ago where they have got rid of pavements in many areas as so many people drive to their local mall etc.

  On 04/04/2025 at 13:40, jazzer said:

Disagree - wider pavements result in narrower roads, slow journey times and more pollution. 

Expand  

Cars are responsible for pollution not pedestrians

[jazzer]

Why do you intentionally misinterpret what was said.

If you actually thought about it then you'd recognize that slower journeys because of narrower roads means it takes longer for traffic to move along and hence motor vehicles will excrete more noxious gases.

 

[malumbu]

If people made smarter transport choices there would be less pollution and carbon emissions.  Whether they drive at all, how they drive, sharing journeys, the car they drive.  As I have said numerous times.  Why do some people insist on going on about the LTN at every opportunity?

[alice]

People ‘go on’ about  things that matter to them.  Im sure you understand that

[jazzer]

What smarter transport choices do you expect people to make?

As I already said i is my belief that narrowing roads slows traffic flow, increases journey times and hence pollution thus increases. 

[march46]

Parked cars narrow road space - do you object to those or just improvements for pedestrians?

Edited April 14 by march46
Clarity

[Cyclemonkey]

  On 14/04/2025 at 21:14, jazzer said:

What smarter transport choices do you expect people to make?

As I already said i is my belief that narrowing roads slows traffic flow, increases journey times and hence pollution thus increases. 

Expand  

Bus, walk, cycle?  We live in a very walkable city with amazing public transport.  Yes not everyone can do that, but many currently driving can.  

[exdulwicher]

  On 11/04/2025 at 11:59, Penguin68 said:

This is an expensive piece of work at a time when local authorities are cash strapped. 

Expand  

Is it expensive? I mean, I've not bothered to look at the costs but you haven't published any costs or compared it to other works so it sounds like an opinion. Feel free to correct me if you have actually got a list of costs and comparisons.

Also, most transport costs are funded from a range of sources. DfT, TfL, special one-off awards from Treasury (usually for the really high cost stuff like a motorway junction), council funds, Section 106 funds from local developers, sometimes Network Rail if if involves work to a station as well...

  On 11/04/2025 at 11:59, Penguin68 said:

I know of no local requests for wider pavements outside the new M&S. (Happy to stand corrected). 

Expand  

Two things - just because you don't know of any requests does not mean there haven't been any. You could ask the council for the reasoning behind this scheme and if there have indeed been campaigns / requests for such work... And also, councils do not have to wait until someone asks them in order to plan, develop and deliver a scheme. 

  On 11/04/2025 at 11:59, Penguin68 said:

And certainly no reports of near misses or worse - so close to a controlled crossing place. 

Expand  

Crashmap shows a couple of dozen and they're only the reported ones with injuries, not near misses / no injuries / injuries so slight they're not reported. 

  On 11/04/2025 at 11:59, Penguin68 said:

This is very much, at best, a 'nice to' not a 'need to' exercise. 

Expand  

I think this is the point where Wikipedia would add "citation needed".