Melbourne Grove South Barrier

[EDAus]

The Council are moving forward with a barrier on Melbourne Grove South. They could have chosen a filter to reduce traffic but have made the decision to recommend a full traffic barrier - further detail can be found on the webiste:

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50023147&Opt=0

If you live on key roads such as Maltham, Tell, Ashbourne and Chesterfield Grove this will displace traffic onto these roads as the residents of Melbourne Grove require exit and entry points for their own cars / delivery vans etc.

The best thing people can do is email Richard and Dale with their objections / concerns as soon as possible:

[email protected]

Lead member: Councillor Richard Livingstone, Cabinet Member for Environment, Transport and the Climate Emergency

[email protected]

Contact: Dale Foden, Head of Highways Email: [email protected] Tel: 020 7525 2045.

[tiddles]

Oh god what a nightmare

[first mate]

A proportion of Melbourne is also to get double yellow lines (we are told this is to enable cars that need to turn around and go back ). So car owners on MG will also lose parking.

This is being introduced as an emergency measure to achieve social distancing. However, many of you will know that the Council have been trying to close Melbourne Grove for years.

James McAsh seems to indicate that a minority of households on MG supported this, not a majority.

Surrounding streets will suffer.

The council say this is a temporary measure but can we trust them?

[KidKruger]

Corruption and lies.

Where's the pride in this ?

[intexasatthe moment]

Sorry to be dense but how does it help with social distancing ?

[first mate]

I did ask this very question to James McAsh. He did not comment on that aspect. It?s not just SD on Melbourne but the whole area. Why has this particular measure been prioritised. Also, what impact will it have on surrounding streets?

MG will now lose parking spaces because of double yellow lines viewed as necessary for this measure. Where will those cars park now?

[northernmonkey]

ED AUS - you?ve posted the idea that local streets will see increased traffic from RESIDENTS of Melbourne Grove using other streets to drive to and from their properties or to have deliveries. There are a few points on this:

1. The vast majority of traffic on Melbourne Grove is through traffic, not residents coming and going. It?s a rat run/ short cut/ means of bypassing Lordship Lane.

2. Melbourne Grove isn?t actually going to be ?closed off?, just restricted at one end. Therefore residents can enter and exit at the other end if they want.

3. For access to eastbound destinations it will make sense for residents of Melbourne grove to use Ashbourne, chesterfield etc, but they will also be doing this now anyway. The traffic that will have to change behaviour is through traffic which again, was using Melbourne as a cut through.

There may be separate concerns about how that non residential traffic gets to the main road in future but there really should never have been such volumes of traffic on a residential side street in the first place!

[eastdulwichlocal99]

I think the most important thing to remember for those on either side of this issue is that it?s currently a temporary measure. This will allow everyone to experience the pros/cons and if necessary changes can be made.

What better way to deem if it works than to trial it?

[Abe_froeman]

I think the most important thing to remember for those on either side of this issue is that it?s currently a temporary measure under an experimental traffic order and as such can be made permanent without any requirement to consult the public, let alone take into account any objections.

You can be sure that this barrier is going in and will never be removed.

[first mate]

Because it is not clear what the SD benefits are so why trial it now? Why, among many other possible measures is this being prioritised? What is the view of emergency services, have they commented?

I for one do not believe that a measure the Council have been trying to implement for years will be easily given up by them once installed.

What mechanisms for feedback will be in place? If minority support is being cited by the Cllr as reason enough to implement why would a majority against make any difference in future?

[sally buying]

It would interesting to have a full list of changes that Southwark are pushing thru on the back of the virus.

You will not know what they intend to do until it is done.

I have asked Dale Foden many times regarding Champion Hill, no answer.Its there to stay.

These changes will be here for good.

As regards parking and cars Cllr Livingstone has said they are only concentrating during this period on dangerously parked cars not illegally parked cars hence why there is more congestion on streets. This will help their arguments for all these measures.

[ed_pete]

@sally buying - reposted from other thread:

"Covid-19 - Post lockdown highway schemes"

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50023147&Opt=0

[EDAus]

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> ED AUS - you?ve posted the idea that local streets

> will see increased traffic from RESIDENTS of

> Melbourne Grove using other streets to drive to

> and from their properties or to have deliveries.

> There are a few points on this:

> 1. The vast majority of traffic on Melbourne Grove

> is through traffic, not residents coming and

> going. It?s a rat run/ short cut/ means of

> bypassing Lordship Lane.

A filter at either end of Melbourne Grove South would have resolved the issue of through traffic, it would have allowed the residents of Melbourne Grove to enter and exit but stopped through traffic.

A majority of residents on Melbourne Grove have pushed for a barrier, to stop all traffic.

I would suggest residents on Matham, Chesterfield and Ashbourne Grove now campaign to stop the ?through traffic? from Melbourne Grove and surrounding roads off it e.g. Playfield Close.

> 2. Melbourne Grove isn?t actually going to be

> ?closed off?, just restricted at one end.

> Therefore residents can enter and exit at the

> other end if they want.

Please be accurate it is not restricted access e.g. for residents only, it is a road traffic barrier at one end of a significant road in the overall highway network.

Modelling has shown that traffic travelling north will go via Ashbourne Grove, especially larger trucks as Chesterfield Grove is too narrow for such traffic. This was confirmed by the Thames Water works over the last few years.

> 3. For access to eastbound destinations it will

> make sense for residents of Melbourne grove to use

> Ashbourne, chesterfield etc, but they will also be

> doing this now anyway. The traffic that will have

> to change behaviour is through traffic which

> again, was using Melbourne as a cut through.

> There may be separate concerns about how that non

> residential traffic gets to the main road in

> future but there really should never have been

> such volumes of traffic on a residential side

> street in the first place!

I would suggest that the residents of Ashbourne Grove and Chesterfield Grove email [email protected] and [email protected]

campaigning to stop the ?through? traffic from Melbourne Grove and surrounding roads off it e.g. Playfield Close.

This has been a divisive issue in the community for many years, to see the local residents of Melbourne Grove now do this to other roads will have an significant impact on community cohesion and relationships.

I am also extremely concerned about the inclusion and equality impact of such decision making. Many low paid residents of Southwark drive as alternative to public transport as they work in jobs with less flexibility for start and finish times and / or in a number of low paid jobs which means they use their own cars to get from one to another as public transport connections are not strong in this borough. Decision makers should be held to account as to how their decisions impact the overall wider community.

[EDguy89]

EDAus Wrote:

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

> Modelling has shown that traffic travelling north

> will go via Ashbourne Grove, especially larger

> trucks as Chesterfield Grove is too narrow for

> such traffic. This was confirmed by the Thames

> Water works over the last few years.

Can you clarify what you mean here? The modelling the Council has proposed shows that the barrier would be set between Ashbourne and Tell Grove. A northbound truck wouldn't be able to skip Lordship Lane by going down Melbourne, Chesterfield, or Ashbourne Grove. They'd be cut off by the proposed barrier.

[exdulwicher]

Many low paid residents of Southwark drive as alternative to public transport as they work in jobs with less flexibility for start and finish times and / or in a number of low paid jobs which means they use their own cars to get from one to another as public transport connections are not strong in this borough.

Statistically, low paid workers are far less likely to have cars in the first place; they rely disproportionately highly on buses (in particular).

[Abe_froeman]

Matham Grove will also need to be closed off now, thanks to the professional nimbys they are unfortunate to live near.

[EDAus]

Edguy89 -

When Melbourne Grove South was closed for Thames Water works a few years ago, Ashbourne Grove received an increase in traffic heading Northbound and residents made complaints to the council in relation to this issue. It was a real life model.

The residents / delivery trucks / vans / workpeople of Melbourne Grove and surrounding roads wishing to head north are unlikely to double back to exit, they will use other local roads to head north increasing traffic on these roads.

I would be happy to be shown models which show the residents of Melbourne Grove will not drive down Ashbourne and Chesterfield Grove to enter and exit, however comments on EDF and other media show that they intend to do so.

Exduliwcher -

Thank you but I don't consider the local residents, local shop workers and other people I have spoken to about these issues over the years as statistics. I have taken on board their comments and lived experience.

Further no evidence has been presented on how this will impact Lordship Lane, will increased traffic lead to longer bus route times, increased standing traffic and pollution?

[sally buying]

Why are people so mean on this forum

Rejoice in the fact that house prices on MG will no doubt rise and those streets that feed in or out will decrease in value making these residents very unhappy.

People that over borrowed to live in the new haven of MG will not have the worry of going into negative equity now.

I believe the local Cllr said I had not thougt of that situataion in an earlier posts.

Seems he has not thought about many things.

MB like Camberwell Grove has always been a major through route why should it be classified any different now?

Answers on Zoopla please.

[lpool]

It is normal when doing this kind of exercise to monitor current traffic using side roads so that this data can then be compared to data if Melbourne Grove is shut. You have to install traffic monitors at both ends of side roads so that you can identify those vehicles that are visiting the side road. I have not seen any evidence since lockdown of any traffic monitoring in my road so I am unclear how the council expects to determine whether the plan is a success or failure. If traffic volumes increase in side roads then this would suggest any council objective has failed and Melbourne Grove be re-opened.

[tiddles]

The introduction of yellow lines clears the road and makes people drive faster. If you have to slow down to safely pass other cars in my mind that is far better than cars zooming down widened roads.

[eastdulwichlocal99]

.

[Abe_froeman]

It will be a disaster for Matham Grove unless they get rid of the no right turn at the junction of East Dulwich Grove/ Lordship Lane.

I really hope all the traffic diverted that way by this closure doesn't affect the health of the poor kids attending the East Dulwich Grove nursery.

[first mate]

And yet there have actually been serious accidents on other roads the council has not addressed.

It remains to be seen if this will be an improvement for all the streets around Melbourne. Somehow I doubt it. Though MG may have some slight improvement in air quality. Again, I do hope that those living on MG who pushed for this will relinquish any motor vehicle ownership, if they currently own one, and will not add to parking pressure, air pollution or congestion on other streets around them.

[Serena2012]

I?ve messaged the council to voice my significant concerns about the knock on impact of the barrier including on:

1. Safety at the East Dulwich Grove/ Lordship Lane junction (which has been the location of some serious collisions in recent years). Increasing the volume of traffic at this junction in circumstances where it also doubles as a major pedestrian crossing is simply a fatal accident waiting to happen.

2. The Goose Green roundabout (which is already saturated at certain times of day). The no right turn from East Dulwich Grove onto Lordship Lane will invariably result in significantly more vehicles using the roundabout as a turning point, thereby leading to more idling traffic; greater air pollution and longer journey times

3. Air quality for the children at Goose Green Primary and Harris Primary East Dulwich, both of which are on roads that will bear the brunt of these changes. In particular, I find it hard to believe that the tailbacks from Goose Green roundabout won?t stretch back as far as Goose Green Primary

4. Bus journey times along East Dulwich Grove; East Dulwich Road; Lordship Lane and Grove Vale. None of these roads are wide enough for bus lanes in the sections impacted by these proposals, and accordingly increasing the volume of traffic will inevitably have a knock on impact on bus journey times.

5. The ability of emergency service vehicles to access those most in need quickly.

6. The inevitable road closures that occur from time to time along East Dulwich Grove and Lordship Lane. Closing the only viable alternative route is somewhat perverse and will invariably cause practical and logistical headaches in the future.

The response I received from Dale F implied that this is a done deal, and that any concerns will be taken into account when these measures are reviewed. That having been said, I would encourage those concerned about these proposals to make their voices heard.

As others have said before, air quality should be for all and not the few. It seems unfair that measures that benefit the residents of one street should do so whilst compromising the safety and well-being of everyone else (including by reducing their air quality; making certain crossings and junctions more dangerous and making it harder for emergency service vehicles to get to them in their hour of need).

Edited to add: I?m conscious that much is often made of the fact that Melbourne Grove is home to a number of young families. This is undisputed, but I should highlight that other roads that will bear the brunt of this including Tell Grove, East Dulwich Grove, Matham Grove and Zenoria are also home to a significant number of young families. Melbourne Grove certainly doesn?t have a monopoly on this, nor should the lungs of its children be spared at the detriment of others. Indeed, I am sceptical that the number of young families living on Melbourne Grove outnumbers the number of pupils attending the primary schools that stand to ?lose out? as a result of this.

[exdulwicher]

Exduliwcher -

Thank you but I don't consider the local residents, local shop workers and other people I have spoken to about these issues over the years as statistics. I have taken on board their comments and lived experience.

We call that "anecdata".

When anecdotes (stories, opinion, sometimes first hand, sometimes a mix of "a friend of a friend said/did/experienced...") get blended with assumptions and supposition and (usually) a fair bit of emotion and then uplifted to be "fact".

Classic case is pretty much any thread to do with cycling/cyclists and especially helmets which always brings out anecdata like never before - I got knocked off and I WOULD HAVE DIED without my helmet therefore everyone should wear helmets.

First part is fact - got knocked off bike, was wearing helmet.

Second part is supposition that can't be proven - "would have died" (well maybe, maybe not)

Third part is the illogical leap to (wrong) conclusion.

The introduction of the Workplace Parking Levy in Nottingham https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/10/17/nottinghams-workplace-parking-levy-creates-jobs-cuts-car-use-and-slashes-pollution/ saw similar responses, if not even more negative than some of the posts on here. It's been a resounding success.

It's why anecdata is a dreadful measure of "what should be done" and you look at the bigger statistical picture. It's also why it's important to fill in surveys, questionnaires etc on the council website. Sounding off on here won't do a lot, much as the local councillors do seem to engage fairly freely and openly.