Closure of Melbourne Grove to through traffic - new petition

[intexasatthe moment]

Really interesting post Robin ,thanks .

[rch]

Thanks, intexas. And thanks for your support in general, much appreciated.

Getting back to traffic issues... FYI, the Dulwich Society is having an open public traffic meeting this afternoon at 2pm at Saint Barnabas Church on Calton Avenue.

The discussion will be mostly Village ward oriented (the Townley Road junction issues and Quietways), but the same underlying dynamic is developing in East Dulwich.

[Zebedee Tring]

Rch, I couldn't get to the Dulwich Society open meeting. Perhaps you or someone else who attended could give us a rundown of what happened.

[rch]

Hi Zeb, the meeting transpired to be about fairly Village ward-specific issues such as the Townley junction and the proposed Quietways, which will have a knock-on effect to East Dulwich, but the chair briefly mentioned that the Melbourne closure feasibility study appears to have been set aside for now.

But comparing notes was extremely interesting in that residents are pretty much agreeing that what the proposals that we are all fighting have in common is that they seem to be proposed by people who don't really understand how the Dulwich parameters differ from the rest of the borough and that there seems to be a glitch in communications and consultations down here that exacerbate the problems.

So, one of the ideas that we're kicking around is whether the Dulwich Society might want to host and chair more community meetings in the local area so that residents have a better opportunity to discuss various matters with council officers BEFORE large sums of money is spent designing or implementing measures that we then have to spend inordinate amounts of time objecting to, leading to more funding being spent on re-re-re-designs.

I think that this is definitely something that should be explored...

[first mate]

Rch,

Thanks for the feedback and thanks for representing our interests, yet again.

In terms of what you say I'd note that were James Barber minded, this is where he could really make a difference. Those local Councillors who are Labour will probably not have the guts to set themselves against the Tooley St agenda for S'wark, but James and his colleague could be more independent and speak out for what you term the Dulwich parameters.

It takes a big person to really listen and change accordingly, I still hope James can do this.

I like your idea for the Dulwich Society and look forward to hearing more.

[Zebedee Tring]

Thanks for your summary, Robin.

[Abe_froeman]

This has all one rather quiet and, more than a month after the deputation at the Dulwich Community Council, no minutes are available on Southwark's website.

Does anyone know what the current status is?

[first mate]

I noticed today rather large square bollard type things (hard to describe) at the junction of Melbourne Grove and ED Grove on both sides. They have also appeared on the junction of Glengarry Rd into ED Grove. What are these for???

[nxjen]

first mate Wrote:

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

> I noticed today rather large square bollard type

> things (hard to describe) at the junction of

> Melbourne Grove and ED Grove on both sides. They

> have also appeared on the junction of Glengarry Rd

> into ED Grove. What are these for???

I've seen these too. I think they serve the same function as the metal bell shaped things on other corners which I have always assumed were to prevent cars cutting corners over the pavement. Would be interested to learn if this is correct.

[ED_moots]

first mate Wrote:

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

> I noticed today rather large square bollard type

> things (hard to describe) at the junction of

> Melbourne Grove and ED Grove on both sides. They

> have also appeared on the junction of Glengarry Rd

> into ED Grove. What are these for???

The bollards appeared when the junction buildouts were done and predate the barrier nonsense.

They must be a safety feature and probably stop long vehicles turning in. They also prevent you from wandering into the road of you be got your head buried in your phone.

It's worth keeping an eye on the charter school development (thread http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1583816,page=3) for more MG traffic issues. The pre planning proposal has very little parking planned or a traffic management plan (yet) and it's a very big school

[ted17]

I live on Glengarry Road and the bollard on the corner is a massive pain. It just takes chunks out of cars and vice versa; I can't see any possible safety benefit - if the issue is that cars routinely drive on pavements, why aren't they on more corners? The real issue with that junction is, turning right out of Glengarry, you can't see a thing because of the bus stop and six pizza bikes with massive boxes parked all over the nice big pavement. You essentially have to gamble, turning right, by nosing out into the road. I hope the nice new wide pavements on Lordship Lane don't become de facto parking spots for pizza bikes, but clearly this is a use of them that the Council is happy with.

On Melbourne - the question simply becomes, where does the traffic go? Up Lordship Lane. The idea that progressively closing streets will discourage car use is nonsense, apart from in the very long run. In the short and medium term, i.e. the next ten years, it will just cause cars to be backed up on more and more roads. It simply isn't justifiable beyond the preferences of those few who live on the road. God forbid I had my way on everything I thought should change on my road! Or maybe I should trade the closure of Melbourne for the removal of the bollards and pizza bikes on Glengarry...

[James Barber]

Hi ted17,

I don't recall any detail about research regarding the elasticity of people choosing to drive more or less based on more or less roads - do you?

I think I've read research about new roads creating lots of new use e.g M25 but haven't kept copies of this. Do you have something showing the opposite that reducing road capacity and routes take 5-10 years for people to change behaviours?

[ED_moots]

Great post James, makes perfect sense.

[rodneybewes]

There has actually been quite a bit of study on this if you are interested - looking up induced traffic and latent demand brings up some interesting reading. Try this for starters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess%27_paradox.

[johnhinton]

RB, your link is very interesting (even at this time of the morning) and increases my appreciation of traffic flow engineers. However, I wonder if the decisions made about the traffic restrictions (proposed and actual) have been properly assessed and modelled. Loughborough may be an example of a network link that was far more critical than could have been imagined by an untrained or inexperienced "planner" or an experiment to show a counter example to Braess' paradox.

[rodneybewes]

Hi JH, I would imagine that very little of that kind of modelling would have gone into the Loughborough Junction decision - it doesn't feel very joined up to me at all. Just lots of random events occurring up and down the network sadly. Possibly they use a magic 8 ball to decide which one is next...

[wulfhound]

RB, your link is very interesting (even at this time of the morning) and increases my appreciation of traffic flow engineers. However, I wonder if the decisions made about the traffic restrictions (proposed and actual) have been properly assessed and modelled.

Apparently models are an order of magnitude more expensive than trial closures - and still far from 100% reliable. In some instances, the try-it-and-see way of doing things might be more effective.

Loughborough may be an example of a network link that was far more critical than could have been imagined by an untrained or inexperienced "planner" or an experiment to show a counter example to Braess' paradox.

Neither traffic evaporation nor induced demand happen overnight.

You'd expect things to get worse before they get better. To begin with, people will just put up with it and get annoyed. Same as if you build a new motorway, it'll take a while to fill up, but fill up it will - because longer journeys are easier and more attractive.

It doesn't help that the main alternative at LJ is buses, and a combination of the LJ scheme itself and works at E&C, Vauxhall, Wandsworth Road, Stockwell, Oval etc. has fairly knackered those. Dreadful timing.

The length and nature of the trial is probably counterproductive too. Short enough that most people will see an end in sight, and just sit it out rather than figure out alternatives.

It'll be interesting to see if Coldharbour Lane in particular is any less awful at the end of the trial than at the beginning. Even if it only drops 10% over eight weeks, that could indicate a trend. Hopefully they're measuring that.

[intexasatthe moment]

Is the theory - close a road ,traffic forced on to route b ,route b becomes congested ,people eventually become so annoyed that they give up driving /traffic evaporates ?

[Mugglesworth]

I would have thought that the long term repair / frequent closure of Hammersmith flyover would have provided some real life data for this but I can't find anything from a quick search. The flyover and approach roads would have seen traffic "evaporate" but I'd like to know the impact on both the signed diversions and on the South and North Circulars.

[intexasatthe moment]

Mugglesworth ,I have similar feelings . That's why I'm checking if my understanding is correct ( probably not ! ) .

seems to me that congestion /people adapting their habits because frustrated are elements . But surely that should apply to ,for instance ,the increasingly congested M25 and other motorways ?

[wulfhound]

Is the theory - close a road ,traffic forced on to route b ,route b becomes congested ,people eventually become so annoyed that they give up driving /traffic evaporates ?

That's a reasonable way to look at it. The theory is that those whose journeys are most easily substituted will be the first to give up. Not sure how well that holds up in reality, because people have varying degrees of attachment to their cars, varying degrees of tolerance for sitting in jams, and all sorts of other soft factors besides just getting them and their stuff from A to B quickly. So, in reality, some people with longer journeys to make will lose out more, and some people making short, easily substituted trips will continue to sit it out.

But in balance, people do whatever's easiest. Want them to drive lots? Make that easiest thing to do. Want them to walk or cycle? Ditto.

Of course, if you change what's easiest by making one of the easy options harder, people will, quite reasonably, complain. Especially if you manage to screw up one of the alternatives at the same time (buses) and don't exactly do a great job of fixing another (cycling). Expecting it all to happen at once is too much to ask, but they could (for example) have put in cycle exemptions/contraflows on some of the one way systems near LJ before closing the roads, made sure the area had Boris Bikes, and not carry out the trial at a time when the buses were already in a bad way due to other works.

It's social engineering, certainly - the question is whether the conclusions of a report like this one from the GLA last month justify it.

https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Health_Impact_of_Cars_in_London-Sept_2015_Final.pdf

[Pevara]

With respect, I strongly disagree. This is the hope and expectation of those who hold to it, nothing more.

I haven't come across anyone with concrete real life examples or reliable statistics that show that road closures will indubitably reduce traffic movements, so long as alternative routes are available. I expect that traffic will simply flow down the alternate routes, blighting the lives of those who live on narrower side roads for no real environmental gain.

The posts referred to on Wikipedia simply refer to modifications to game theory, which show that traffic can speed up in some very carefully selected instances if certain roads are closed (due to how drivers decide which routes to take). There is nothing to show that there is an actual or significant expectation of reduction in traffic levels.

I think this argument on reduction of traffic really needs to be examined scientifically, not based on certain persons' hopes and expectations. To me, it is a totally counter-intuitive expectation to hold; I think if one has reasonably close alternative route available, one will continue to travel, simply down those alternative routes instead.

We should not allow side streets to become motorways in the hope and prayer that traffic levels will reduce simply because larger roads are closed and the diversions take a little longer.

I stress again, this will bring misery for all of us who live along the newly created rat runs via side streets (and more clamour for side street barriers), for no benefit to the environment. Hope and expectations are completely improper tools to rely on to make significant transport policy changes, especially when it has significant adverse impacts on neighbouring streets.

wulfhound Wrote:

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

> > Is the theory - close a road ,traffic forced on

> to route b ,route b becomes congested ,people

> eventually become so annoyed that they give up

> driving /traffic evaporates ?

>

>

> That's a reasonable way to look at it. The theory

> is that those whose journeys are most easily

> substituted will be the first to give up. Not sure

> how well that holds up in reality, because people

> have varying degrees of attachment to their cars,

> varying degrees of tolerance for sitting in jams,

> and all sorts of other soft factors besides just

> getting them and their stuff from A to B quickly.

> So, in reality, some people with longer journeys

> to make will lose out more, and some people making

> short, easily substituted trips will continue to

> sit it out.

>

> But in balance, people do whatever's easiest. Want

> them to drive lots? Make that easiest thing to do.

> Want them to walk or cycle? Ditto.

>

> Of course, if you change what's easiest by making

> one of the easy options harder, people will, quite

> reasonably, complain. Especially if you manage to

> screw up one of the alternatives at the same time

> (buses) and don't exactly do a great job of fixing

> another (cycling). Expecting it all to happen at

> once is too much to ask, but they could (for

> example) have put in cycle exemptions/contraflows

> on some of the one way systems near LJ before

> closing the roads, made sure the area had Boris

> Bikes, and not carry out the trial at a time when

> the buses were already in a bad way due to other

> works.

>

> It's social engineering, certainly - the question

> is whether the conclusions of a report like this

> one from the GLA last month justify it.

>

> https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Heal

> th_Impact_of_Cars_in_London-Sept_2015_Final.pdf

[Earl Aelfheah]

This is all good and well, but there are often few alteratives. Travelling back from chsrig cross road, late last night took an hour anda half on the bus. We don't have the same frequent, mass transport I Sze London as else where I the Capital so its ridiculous to just make the roads slower and slower.

[wulfhound]

Pevara,

I mostly agree with you on the behavioural aspect, if there are still alternatives with capacity. One way to look at it is that's an argument for doing nothing & accepting the status quo. The other is to see it as an argument for a more comprehensive, area-based treatment (e.g. looking at all the parallel side roads together, and considering Woodwarde, Dovercourt & Beauval together with Calton Ave, but leaving Townley Road & Court Lane open for east/west traffic). Ditto, they probably shouldn't intervene on Turney Rd. without also considering Burbage Rd.

TBH, if all of them are to be treated, the most sensible intervention would seem to be electric bollards (in order that residents & emergency services can still get in and out at both ends), but whether Southwark / Sustrans are prepared to put hand in pocket for that sort of thing off the route of the Quietway itself, I've no idea.

[@Woodwarde]

Please see this email asking for views on Southwark's consultation methods:

From: Sangweme, Dennis On Behalf Of Planning.Applications

Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 9:01 AM

To: Sangweme, Dennis

Subject: Have your say on the future of planning consultations - 21st Century Public Notices Survey

Dear Resident/Customer,

The planning division is taking part in a Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) pilot aimed at making public notices, including public consultation on planning, more accessible and attuned to the new ways people consume information in the 21st century. You will find more information on this pilot via the following link: 21st Century Notices.

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200074/planning_and_building_control/3848/21st_century_notices_pilot_project

We would like to further understand your needs and preferences regarding consultation on planning applications following an earlier survey in June 2015. We are particularly interested in your views on the recent improvements on the consultation process, including changes made to site notices, neighbour consultation letters, online planning register and submitting comments online. The survey should take up to ten minutes to complete and all responses are anonymous. Please feel free to pass the survey on to others interested in participating.

Take part in the survey here

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1mDmNmG3RjPLLdS0X749JyGtqmhpT3nYq06x_7kTRgLA/viewform

The survey will be open until the 31st of October 2015.

Kind Regards,

Dennis Sangweme | Group Manager ? Validation & Fast Track

Development Management | Planning Division| Chief Executive's Department

The London Borough of Southwark | PO Box 64529 | London SE1P 2QH

T: 0207 525 5419 | E: [email protected]