Urgent: Help Reopen Closed Melbourne Grove and adjacent roads

[alice]

So being a ?through commuter? is a bad thing?? Tell that to the staff at Kings.

[legalalien]

I personally have no problem at all with through commuters but I seem to recall it was one of the key arguments being used to drive the original OHS plans. Happy to be wrong.

[Rockets]

Yes I was amazed Cllr Rose said that and it further highlights how flawed these closures are because through traffic doesn't jump on a bike or walk - it goes another route and this comes back to my initial concerns on this whole programme - it doesn't know what it is trying to deal with and all it is doing to moving the problem a few streets over.

[FairTgirl]

This is interesting too from a lifelong Labour member and A road dweller.

https://www.onlondon.co.uk/paul-wheeler-why-londons-road-wars-are-tearing-labour-apart/

If you have any objections to the ED LTN you can still officially object today, just go to the first post in this thread for all you need and who to send it to.

[malumbu]

No it is a very backward view on the subject seeking to score political points, and does no help but to Labour or the environmental cause. See longer critique on the healthy streets thread. It was his party that kowtowed to the road lobby.

[DuncanW]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Yes I was amazed Cllr Rose said that and it

> further highlights how flawed these closures are

> because through traffic doesn't jump on a bike or

> walk - it goes another route and this comes back

> to my initial concerns on this whole programme -

> it doesn't know what it is trying to deal with and

> all it is doing to moving the problem a few

> streets over.

I'm not sure if you have data to back up the assertion that 'through traffic doesn't jump on a bike or walk - it goes another route" but over time people who are used to making longer commuting journeys may well do any of the following:

Jump on a bike - yes they actually might

Catch the train

Move closer to where they work

Seek work nearer home

Find a way to work from home (at least some of the time)

Travel at less busy times

And these may also apply to kids coming into school from out of the area and driving for any other reason such as shopping, leisure etc.

[Rockets]

DuncanW - but we do have the data.

In the Waltham Forest LTN there was a sustained and continuous increase in traffic on the boundary roads of the LTN. A road 3.1m from the outer most edge had a 28% increase in traffic, and still has.

Out of interest, do you have the data to back up that people do?

And I am sorry but some of your comments are utterly unrealistic for most people - let's be realistic, people don't think "oh I got a ticket going through Dulwich Village, let me get a job closer to home/move closer to work". Well, not in the real world anyway.

[DuncanW]

Hey Rockets,

The data you have quoted indicates that some of the through traffic ends up on the main road. I don't think it demonstrates that some of the through traffic is not dissipated in other ways, such as my earlier post. Would you not need to know the total amount of traffic originally using the now LTN route and to know whether or not that equalled the uplift on the nearby main roads?

I don't have any hard data to back up what 'some people may do'.

I do know from my own experience and anecdotally, that people do sometimes make those decisions. And I take it you wouldn't argue that there are not more cyclists on the road nowadays; or that the population of inner London has grown significantly over the last 20 years - which to me suggests an increasing number of people who favour a lifestyle where the car is less paramount, than it would be if they had moved (back) to the outer suburbs.

I certainly wouldn't expect someone to move home because they received a ticket. I didn't say that. I do believe someone who normally whizzes their kids to school in the car when it takes fifteen minutes each way, may consider doing something different if it starts taking twice as long and you can't park anywhere near the school as it's now a school street. There's a continuum of examples between your one and mine where I doubt we would agree on each case but some would conceivably lead to a change in behaviour and some would be impossible/unrealistic.

[malumbu]

In my ride out into Kent and Bromley yesterday (yes it was legal) interesting to see all the cars parked on drives and on the street, many houses had two plus. I'm not the green police so will not be lobbying owners to tell them to trade their cars in for bikes. But, hell, car is king out there, and the difference between inner and outer London in these terns is massive. I've managed to get tickets over most of the country, so expect there is a satellite watching my every movement, and as such there is nowhere I can move to without being found.

Spot on BTW Duncan.

[Nigello]

I had a reply from the MP saying that Goodrich School (well, its head and a few others, I reckon as it cannot mean all parents and teachers) objected to closures at Goodrich/Dunstan's on account of the amount of traffic it already has to deal with!

Hmm. So, a body that is only there for about 1/3 of any day and then only during term time gets to dictate what happens to a local community citing road traffic figures even though it has no power to reduce that (whcih is what the council and its policies can do). Talk about tail wagging the dog. I shall be pursuing and pointing out the topsy-turviness of this.

[alice]

Sorry Nigello. But what closures in Dunstans/Goodrich?

[Roky Erickson]

Plenty of local residents objected to the closure too (...as you well know)

Nigello Wrote:

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

> I had a reply from the MP saying that Goodrich

> School (well, its head and a few others, I reckon

> as it cannot mean all parents and teachers)

> objected to closures at Goodrich/Dunstan's on

> account of the amount of traffic it already has to

> deal with!

> Hmm. So, a body that is only there for about 1/3

> of any day and then only during term time gets to

> dictate what happens to a local community citing

> road traffic figures even though it has no power

> to reduce that (whcih is what the council and its

> policies can do). Talk about tail wagging the dog.

> I shall be pursuing and pointing out the

> topsy-turviness of this.

[Nigello]

I have no idea about the other residents, nor do I know (and think you don't know either) what "plenty" means here.

The valid and important thing is that the MP quotes a council leader, no less, when she says that the school objected to it. No mention was made of other residents, only the school, which led me to point out the oddness of a school, which ought to have safety of its pupils as a top priority and which has several safety features in place, including a now-obsolete narrowing of road through which large lorries using modern routing technology not anticipated when it was installed, being the body that seemingly has the council's ear.

The Dunstan's Goodrich closure was to have been a semi-permanent barrier, much like those in Court Lane and Melbourne Grove, but it was taken away after the hoo-ha over similar restrictions in places that are double lane roads (ie. not narrowed in the name of safety) not as near to the schools as this one is - ie. right outside it.

More work is needed but I am confident some kind of restriction will be put in place. You cannot plead safety and spend money installing and maintaining a narrowing of road to then allow eight-wheeled lorris and other massive vehicles sent down it to a mini-roundabout. It makes no sense and I feel confident a right-minded arbiter will agree.

[Roky Erickson]

I know personally of many residents of Upland, Dunstan's, and Goodrich who objected to the closure. Not only the intent, but also the process by which the council proposed implementing it without even informing, let alone consulting, local residents. Many of us, who do indeed live here all year around, wrote to the council and our MP to object, so your claim that this is just the school "getting to dictate what happens to a local community" is completely false.

As I understood it, the intent of the closure was to aid social distancing around the school gates, and encourage 'active travel' to school. The council decided that this could be achieved in other ways, without a permanent road closure -- a measure which, as any reader of this forum will know, is a divisive and contentious one. From talking to our local councillor, the road widening measures implemented have been a great success, and been welcome by parents and children alike. And I understand there is talk of a timed closure on Dunstan's to help further with this.

Your recurrent campaigning on here (and the Streetspace) for a permanent closure seems to be driven entirely by the fact that you live on that particular stretch of Goodrich Rd. It has nothing to do with children and their safety, and everything to do with your own self-interest. You have complained on this forum about your irritation with the school run, which "accounts for lots of traffic (and choice language)". If you feel like that, then I am slightly bemused as to why you would choose to live opposite a 900+ pupil school in the first place. But to continue to actively campaign to close the road permanently, in order to placate that resentment, when the school itself is saying it doesn't want it for its pupils, parents, and staff -- and the MP and council agree with those objections -- seems pretty abhorrent to me. Any 'right-minded arbiter' will see your objections for what they are, I'm sure.

Nigello Wrote:

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

> I have no idea about the other residents, nor do I

> know (and think you don't know either) what

> "plenty" means here.

> The valid and important thing is that the MP

> quotes a council leader, no less, when she says

> that the school objected to it. No mention was

> made of other residents, only the school, which

> led me to point out the oddness of a school, which

> ought to have safety of its pupils as a top

> priority and which has several safety features in

> place, including a now-obsolete narrowing of road

> through which large lorries using modern routing

> technology not anticipated when it was installed,

> being the body that seemingly has the council's

> ear.

>

> The Dunstan's Goodrich closure was to have been a

> semi-permanent barrier, much like those in Court

> Lane and Melbourne Grove, but it was taken away

> after the hoo-ha over similar restrictions in

> places that are double lane roads (ie. not

> narrowed in the name of safety) not as near to the

> schools as this one is - ie. right outside it.

>

> More work is needed but I am confident some kind

> of restriction will be put in place. You cannot

> plead safety and spend money installing and

> maintaining a narrowing of road to then allow

> eight-wheeled lorris and other massive vehicles

> sent down it to a mini-roundabout. It makes no

> sense and I feel confident a right-minded arbiter

> will agree.

[Nigello]

The MP did not agree with waht she was told from the council - that is a fact, so please do not say otherwise. She simply quoted a council very high-up, that's all. She acknowledged that the situation was not satisfactory, as did this council bod, who said that further inquiries will be made into all aspects of road safety.

Please tell me, then, about your self-interest, for surely that is at least somewhat driving your antipathy towards the original closing off to vehicles. Making out that I am acting selfishly whilst you are not doing the same won't wash, as won't having a temporarily-used building making out that it is the be-all and end-all of how traffic (which runs 24/7/365) should be managed.

This stretch of road is not suitable for heavy vehicles. The humps are badly maintained and the road is too narrow so I will continue my "campaign" to keep eight-axel lorries and their like away from what is supposed to be a street that acknowledges the need for safety through its (now rather old and past its usefulness date) narrowing ahead of a (hardly ever respected) mini roundabout. Traffic has increased in both number and physical weight, as has the attitudes of drivers, neither of which could be anticipated but can now, at least in part, be addressed. Onwards!

[Roky Erickson]

Describing the largest primary school in the borough as 'a temporarily-used building' shows such a bizarre sense of priority that it's hard to take anything you then say seriously. However....

As we know well from this forum, traffic has increased everywhere. And, whilst I'm sure that it would be optimal for you to live in a closed-off street, with no traffic going past your window, that was never the intention of this proposed closure. If you look at the Appendix issued by Southwark Council, the aim is abundantly clear:

"to improve the safety of school children and air quality of schools'

The school and parents didn't feel that a permanent closure would help achieve this, and so they didn't implement it. It isn't really any more complicated than that. Your suggestion that the council should prioritise the wishes of the 6 houses on that stretch of road, and their preference for a quieter life, rather than the nearly 1000 children who use the school every day, is so appallingly selfish, that it doesn't bear further comment.

Nigello Wrote:

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

> The MP did not agree with waht she was told from

> the council - that is a fact, so please do not say

> otherwise. She simply quoted a council very

> high-up, that's all. She acknowledged that the

> situation was not satisfactory, as did this

> council bod, who said that further inquiries will

> be made into all aspects of road safety.

> Please tell me, then, about your self-interest,

> for surely that is at least somewhat driving your

> antipathy towards the original closing off to

> vehicles. Making out that I am acting selfishly

> whilst you are not doing the same won't wash, as

> won't having a temporarily-used building making

> out that it is the be-all and end-all of how

> traffic (which runs 24/7/365) should be managed.

> This stretch of road is not suitable for heavy

> vehicles. The humps are badly maintained and the

> road is too narrow so I will continue my

> "campaign" to keep eight-axel lorries and their

> like away from what is supposed to be a street

> that acknowledges the need for safety through its

> (now rather old and past its usefulness date)

> narrowing ahead of a (hardly ever respected) mini

> roundabout. Traffic has increased in both number

> and physical weight, as has the attitudes of

> drivers, neither of which could be anticipated but

> can now, at least in part, be addressed. Onwards!

[Spartacus]

With last nights roadmap to unlocking announced and the plan for full restrictions to be removed no earlier than the 21st June, does this imply that making streets covid safe will also be removed ?

Could make an interesting challenge to part of the reasons used by Southwark for closing off roads in East Dulwich and Peckham 🤔

[malumbu]

I'd like to know more about the Goodrich scheme. A road I rarely drive down, and seeing it at school pick up time on the odd occasion it was totally gridlocked. What are the measures to encourage more to walk their kids to school? Innocent question. I've done my bit as a local parent with another school, leafletting those parking dangerously whilst others started a walking bus. Tree huggers in action!

[Nigello]

The school says it does not want a road to be blocked off under council Covid rules to make it more green, less busy, cleaner air, etc. - even though it recognises the problem of too many parents (and staff, if it wanted to be fair) driving to the school by promoting walking, etc. via school newsletters and PTA. Goodrich is narrowed to about 6'6" at a junction with Dunstan's Road, ahead of a (never respected) mini roundabout. Eight-axel vehicles and small children are, IMHO, not a good mix, **but others disagree**, even though the road section in question was adapted to *make it safer for the children*, thereby acknowledging a potential dangerspot, one that with the type and volume of vehicle is worse than it ever could have been 20-odd years ago when it was altered and narrowed. (Eight-axel vehicles sent via sat-navs down unsuitable streets down streets with badly maintained speed humps are not a good mix, school nearby or not. Barry Road, LL and FH Road are there for those kind of vehicles; small roads never designed with huge lorries in mind should be kept for standard-sized vehicles that are not just saving the driver of huge company's lorry a few precious minutes.) Change will come!

[malumbu]

Thanks Nigello - yes that was my opinion of the immediate area. Curious that the school didn't want to do something stronger to discourage this. As said parents campaigned at another school in the area, and we saw many drivers who were happy to park on pavements, double yellows and the like, start changing their behaviour. The times they are in deed a changing.

[Rockets]

I thought the school and local residents were not supportive because 1) the initial plans were badly designed (completely blocking any residents access on the section of Goodrich in front of the school) 2) that they realised the measures would just push additional traffic onto other roads in the area 3) the council expected the school to take responsibility for opening and closing the barrier that they suggested using a version 2 of their plans.

Also, where are you saying the 8-axle trucks are going - are you saying they are cutting along Dunstan's to get from Peckham Rye to Lordship Lane or are you saying they are going along Goodrich? The only bigger vehicles I ever see are either the Brakes lorry delivering to Goodrich (and they is very early in the morning before school) or builder's lorries that are delivering steels etc to one of the 3 million loft/kitchen diner conversions currently underway in the area.

[Abe_froeman]

I don't actually believe a lorry with eight axles has ever driven down Goodrich road.

A bin lorry has three axles

A tipper usually has two to four axles.

A cement mixer has two to five axles, but the five axle mixers are for buildings like the Shard, not a polished concrete floor in East Dulwich.

Even the biggest articulated lorries on our roads generally only have 6 axles.

Sometimes an articulated lorry might have two trailers to get up to 8 axles but that's pretty unusual, and I doubt that even happens on the South Circular very often.

[Roky Erickson]

Of course no lorries with 8 axles go down this road. It's just propaganda being spread by one man who is selfishly, yet relentlessly, trying to get his own way, and at the expense of 900 school children. You can see the same comments (sometimes doubled-up) on Streetspace, and, most depressingly, I even had Dale Foden from Southwark Council repeating them back in an email to me (before he was quickly corrected), so he's clearly saying the same to them too. I find it pretty abhorrent.

The proposed closure was part of the 'School Streets Programme'. In line with other such measures in the borough, its intent was to aid social distancing at the school gates during Covid. It's crucial to understand that there are gates to the school on 3 different roads -- and that, in fact, the main gates to the school are not even on Goodrich Rd. So, after consultation, discussion, and a site visit, it was decided that closing that particular stretch of the road, and permanently, would not achieve the stated aim. And would not make children safer. It's important to note that this was also the comment made on the actual document itself by our local councillor, from the moment it was first proposed. And so, they adopted temporary widening of two other roads instead. To which measure, the feedback has been very positive.

'Nigello' seems confused, and with an astonishing level of selfishness, seems to thinks that the school have overruled the closure. But the closure only ever existed because of the school (I think the clue might be in the name 'School Streets Programme'). The idea that they have somehow gone against the 'community' (in this case, of 1) is just not true, and it's a line he should stop peddling. They looked into a permanent closure of his small stretch of road, and decided alternative measures would better achieve their aim. And that's that. I'm sorry if that decision gets in the way of his preference for a quieter life, but to campaign so tediously against that, and put that self-interest ahead of nearly 1000 children (and their 'temporarily used building') is just wrong.

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> I don't actually believe a lorry with eight axles

> has ever driven down Goodrich road.

>

> A bin lorry has three axles

> A tipper usually has two to four axles.

> A cement mixer has two to five axles, but the five

> axle mixers are for buildings like the Shard, not

> a polished concrete floor in East Dulwich.

>

> Even the biggest articulated lorries on our roads

> generally only have 6 axles.

>

> Sometimes an articulated lorry might have two

> trailers to get up to 8 axles but that's pretty

> unusual, and I doubt that even happens on the

> South Circular very often.

[Nigello]

I am trying to get my way, yes, in the same way anyone else is trying to do the same. To pretend I am more selfish than anyone else is specious. This section of road is meant to be safer by dint of its having been narrowed. The huge lorries slam over poorly maintained road and houses shake. Again, these are facts. It is also a fact that the school head and teachers do not live near here yet seem to think that they have the right to say what ought and ought not to happen to a part of the neighbourhood that is home to people permanently. To suggest I do not care about safety is incorrect. I have seen what heavy lorries can do (look up Sowerby Bridge accident) and do not think that the council is doing its utmost to satisfy the problems that continuing to allow very heavy traffic along a stretch of road that is patently not designed for them. Lorries of that size do not belong in this road, or others nearby, yet delivery lorries for CoOp and Sainsbury's and other massive vehicles are sent down these roads (plural, not just this one). So, I shall continue to campaign for a solution that addresses my concerns about my property as well as those pertaining to safety. That way, two birds are killed with one stone. Why you think that I have it in for 900 kiddiwinks is beyond me - and probably lots of others who don't have such a florid imagination as you do! Safety is for all, but so is the correct use of a road so that dangers to humans and property are as few as possible, and I think that any right minded individual should be trying to solve as many problems with as few side effects as possible. In an ideal world, heavy vehicles would be made to use Barry and Forest Hill and not this stretch of road, including the normal bit outside Summerhill (ie. the standard width). I believe I am searching for a solution that will tick as many boxes as possible whereas you feel it best to claim a high ground because you've been comparing notes and sniggering with your important council contacts and like to pretend that I am somehow imperilling hundreds of cherubic children because I want to stop heavy lorries from coming past the very building they angelically inhabit (temporarily, of course). Forza!

[Pugwash]

I think the main problem in Goodrich/Dunstans/Upland were irresponsible parking by parents. Dulwich Hill SNT spent many hours over the last couple of years trying to educate these parents, some who were very abusive to other road users and residents.