Closure of Melbourne Grove to through traffic - new petition

[tiddles]

perhaps the discussion about this (which is on the tail end of the townley road thread) should be carried on here? I suspect a lot of people are unaware of this suggestion and this will have a considerable impact on a lot of local residents and road users.

edited to mention new petition organised for this

[intexasatthe moment]

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1426742,1536588,page=31#msg-1536588 page 31 and onwards on the ".Consultation on ?improving? the junction of East Dulwich Grove, Townley Road and Green Dale" thread

[Bobby P]

Yes, makes sense for this proposed road barrier in Melbourne Grove to have its own title.

To summarise... Am opposed currently here to anything so drastic as the proposed barrier near between Ashbourne and Tell Grove - for all the reasons in the other thread, mainly that:

a) it wouldn't reduce traffic speeds, if that's a concern, on the rest of the road (though the police survey doesn't show alarming speeds really in my opinion, with most cars driving under 20mph)- there are other ways to reduce speeds if people want that.

b) it would cause traffic displacement, pushing traffic instead onto the most congested part of Lordship Lane, and up Ashbourne, which would surely mean more pollution and more noise for those who live in that immediate vicinity.

c) it would lose parking space on Melbourne Grove, with several car spaces being lost around the barrier, if it were erected.

d) it would make it pretty inconvenient for those of us that do, from time to time, want to drive anywhere points North as we would have to instead drive all the way up Ashbourne, and along the most crowded bit of Lordship and Grove Vale.

Anyhow, it will be interesting to hear the a range of views once people get wind of the proposal for a barrier that some residents are putting forward to the local Councillors at today's meeting.

[richard tudor]

What is Cllr barbers take on all this?

Will he sit on the fence and go with the minority that exerts the most pressure?

Will be interesting

[Bobby P]

Indeed it will, richard tudor. :) I hope James will comment on this or the other thread soon.

[mockingbird]

The 'Melbourne' deputation was made and claims to have contacted everyone 4 or 5 times. Disputed from the floor. Seems that some of the Dulwich Community Councillors are supportive, some not and others concerned of knock-on effects to Calton and Townley. The deputation leader expressed concerns that Southwark planners themselves are not in favour and the Village Labour Councillor explained that Southwark have formalities to go through. College Ward Councillor noted the summer Townley Road developments and that nothing should be done before Sept. The deputation also said that it refused to have speed checks done, even though these were on offer. What was a surprise is that (blink) the DCC agreed to put ?5-10k budget to a trial for this - whatever that trial consists of. Many deputations will prick up ears at this.... Is it really that easy to secure funding without any formality?

[LalKJ]

Hi Mockingbird

Just to clarify - full speed checks were done by the police with the taping across the road, for over a week. What the residents did refuse to do is stand on the road themselves with speed cameras. This was discussed with a couple of the Councillors at the time it was mooted as there has been previous aggression towards people wielding speed cameras, and they advised that it might not be the best thing to do, or be necessary as the police had taken more accurate data over a wider period of time.

[LalKJ]

Sorry for the follow up - also to clarify the ?5-10k was not allocated for a trial of a barrier but for a feasibility study - which, from what I can gather, will focus on the effects of displacement of any traffic if a barrier were erected.

[rch]

I can see that a more appropriate thread has been started for the Melbourne Barrier subject, but I just wanted to follow up a couple of things here...

Firstly, I agree that improving cycling measures in the area will indeed help to get residents out of cars, but we have a higher demographic of elderly people and mothers with several young children who can't cycle, so improving the bus service is an essential option.

The bus service north-south on Lordship Lane is great if you're going north or south, but the east-west provision is awful which makes getting to train stations, schools, and running local errands difficult. It takes me over half an hour to walk into the village or to Herne Hill from my house on Melbourne Grove, which is often quicker than waiting around for the 37 bus. This same journey takes between 5-10 minutes by car depending on traffic.

Lastly, to clarify, Calton Ave have actually been campaigning for some time for a gate to narrow the vehicle widths at the top of Calton, not an actual barrier.

FYI, there is a currently barrier at the bottom of Gilkes Crescent at the junction of Calton which you all can go have a look at to see what is being suggested... this sort of measure works much better at the end of a road than in the middle, as it's clearer to passing traffic that a road is inaccessible, also it looks like there will be about four parking spaces lost, which is easier to accommodate at the end of a road.

Edited to add... oops, I posted to the wrong thread, but I'll leave it because it's actually a better thread.

[intexasatthe moment]

Fair point about buses along East Dulwich Grove ,east - west . I think many /all would agree that the 37 needs improving .

Is the poor provision here partly linked to Dulwich estate and not wanting buses in its' environs ? That's what I remember being told growing up in the area ?

[rch]

I must say, in this age of austerity, I can think of better things to spend ?10k of public money on! I'm now really curious as to WHO actually suggested a barrier in the first place... especially as this option has been investigated in the past.

At the meeting last night, I actually requested that an investigation of raised junction treatments be included as an alternative option in the barrier review. FYI, if we build out the corners on Chesterfield, this will also solve the Iceland lorry issue (soon to be multiple deliveries by M&S), so we'll be killing two birds with one stone.

But there are so many layers of politics involved in this project now that I really don't have much faith...

As for the volunteer speed camera program... this program requires special training for residents, which deals with aggression by drivers. We wouldn't expect untrained local residents to perform this exercise themselves, but only specially trained and accredited volunteers. At the moment, a police officer is accompanying resident volunteers (in plain clothes if requested).

Ironically, the police sarg said last night that he was out on Melbourne Grove just yesterday afternoon with a volunteer resident measuring traffic speeds, so this process has already begun. I didn't have a chance to ask him if they actually caught anyone speeding.

[ellabrunswick]

It would be great if the feasibility study can look at nearby examples of road treatments and how they actually work - the best thing is to visit and see how it feels.

If you have a chance to go to Van Gogh Walk/Isabella Street in Lambeth, that's a great example of how a whole group of local streets can become really pleasant to walk/cycle/sit out on/play on. http://www.vangoghwalk.org/

People can still drive to get to and from home for errands, but all kinds of other uses of the space come first.

Nearer to East Dulwich - I've recently started using Kelly Avenue and Chandler Way to cycle between Peckham and Burgess Park. Both have gates or bollards at one end. The streets are wide, with lots of trees, and there seems to be plenty of room for car parking. People come and go by car, but there are no delivery vans whizzing through. Lots of waves and informal 'after you', 'no, after you' negotiation between drivers and cyclists and pedestrians. Especially in this warmer weather, it's really nice to see people standing in the street chatting and children playing on the pavement without huge anxiety about games spilling onto the tarmac. There's awareness of vehicles - I heard kids telling each other, 'a car's coming' - but not that sense of danger being just one step off the kerb.

Anyway, do take a walk that way and see what you think. It was quite a surprise to me to discover a couple of almost Dutch streets so nearby.

[d.b]

This is a dreadful idea. Melbourne Grove is not a very busy road and speeds aren't particularly high but it does provide a useful link. As a resident of the southern end of the road, having to drive all the way around via Goose Green roundabout and Lordship Lane would be awful.

Are we just making traffic adjustments because of some noisy residents of the northern end of the road who bought houses on a road with some traffic and want to transform it into a quiet residential backwater? To the detriment of many others who lose convenient access to their own roads.

[richard tudor]

Sounds pretty close to the truth

[wulfhound]

Totally agree ellabrunswick! The whole neighbourhood between Southampton Way & Peckham Hill Street has had that treatment, seems to work well for everyone. Looks to have been done quite recently too (i.e. a retrofit in to an existing neighbourhood, not built like that from scratch).

[Bobby P]

There really is no justification, as per d.b. or richard tudor's comments, for any change on Melbourne that I can see. And yes, it really does seem that one new resident has come in with an agenda which really doesn't chime with many long-term residents' views.

All the stuff about monitoring traffic speeds (wasn't this already done?) or indeed spending ?10k on research, smacks of policy-based evidence-making, i.e. trying to find any problem, however minor, simply to justify the whim of having a barrier in the first place.

[rch]

Actually, if barriers were put in at both the Lordship Lane junction and EDG junction of Melbourne, that would create a blissful environment for all of us... but only blocking off the middle will only create mini-rat runs at either end, especially with schools being built at either end.

But these types of treatments usually work best on small side roads, which Melbourne Grove is not.

Intexas... the problem with the buses isn't the Dulwich Estate, it's TfL. We've campaigned for years, both as residents and even as united cross-party and cross ward councillors (we even united with Lambeth cllrs at one point for a major review of the whole area) but TfL just fob us off saying there isn't enough demand for more bus services. The reason why there isn't a great demand is because people use cars because the bus service is so bad.

The most ongoing campaign is to extend the 42 route to supplement the dysfunctional 37 route... the NHS said that they intended to try to pick this up in advance of building the new health centre on the Dul hosp site, so hopefully the footfall created by a new health centre along with a new school will change TfL's mind.

But this is only a small fragment of the bigger picture...

[rch]

Bobby P, I wish we could "favourite" posts on this forum... you've summed it up perfectly!

[James Barber]

Happy to comment.

The Police conducted a traffic survey over a two week period. It found 15,000 vehicles a week using the lower southern section of Melbourne Grove (East Dulwich Grove to Lordship Lane) or just over 2,000 vehicles per day on average. Many were speeding greater than 20mph. Eight local residents were in the deputation giving their views last night and several explained how they'd been abused when asking people not to speed - hence their reticence to be asked to do this on behalf of the Police. They handed out a useful pack that is too large to add here. It will appear on the Southwark council website and I'll link to it then.

The pack included a petition where clearly the majority of households and people living on that section want a road closure. They have also started to talk to neighbouring streets and a number of residents from other streets have put on record their support. It will be interesting to see how that support develops.

The comment about visiting people 5-6 times was how many attempts to find someone in to ask for their views. Welcome to my world!

They were crystal clear that any road closure could only proceed if residents in all directly affected streets had a say. It was reassuring that they understood and accepted this.

Some seemed miffed by suggestion that Townley Road residents be consulted when the same courtesy hadn't taken place when Townley Road changes occurred.

What we agree last night was to fund a study of the anticipated impacts of closing the road. Once we have that study we will decide how to proceed. Clearly something needs to be done which could range for closing a road to better traffic calming. But until the study is completed - I suspect they have all the data already for this study - we don't know whether a road closure will be thought practicable.

Lots of research to suggest some traffic evaporation would occur with a road closure - likely most would use Lordship Lane as an alternative. Some Townley.

One final point the deputation made. Melbourne Grove had been closed result for many weeks while the junction was changed with East Dulwich Grove. traffic around the area still kept moving. People adjusted. This seems a pretty compelling real world example that it has worked when implemented temporarily.

It would be surprising if people passed the Townley Road junction with Lordship Lane junction if they wanted to proceed westerly along East Dulwich Grove and were then using Melbourne Grove. 2 sides of a triangle.

It seems more likely and that's what I mostly seem to witness that people drive cross East Dulwich Grove and are aiming to go up Dog Kennel Hill and vice versa.

IF and it's a very big if residents wanted this after the study has been published and we had decided to consult on that as an option I would support a road closure. It would make many local streets fully residential again. If not then as a minimum I'd look for full width road humps to try some level of traffic calming.

The suggestion of raised tables at junctions is lovely - but prohibitively expensive. We just don't have anywhere near that level of devolved funding to make that suggestion happen.

[XIX]

James,

Im not sure the temporary closure of the Melbourne Grove/EDG junction for road works a few months back is as you put it a 'compelling real world example' that such a change has worked. Im sure (though standing by to be corrected) that Tell Grove remained open, which meant that anyone wishing to access or leave Melbourne Grove could just nip round the corner via Tell Grove. This new proposal is an entirely different proposition which would prevent any access from EDG (forcing people all the way round onto Lordship Lane), and it is therefore misleading (whether wilfully or not) to directly compare the two.

[LalKJ]

I am pleased that there are so many comments on this issue, as I think that's what the forum is for and the purpose of the public deputation to the council on this issue was hoping to achieve, however, I would just like to make sure that we are careful about the spread of misinformation.

1. what can't be disputed is that there are a number of speeding cars down Melbourne Grove and that there is a lot of traffic - over 15,000 in a week and categorised by the police as excessive for a residential road of its nature.

2. What I agree can be disputed is A) whether you this is an issue or not and B) if you do think it's an issue, the solution you favour.

3. I perfectly accept that many people may not see these issues as problems - however, it is wrong to say that this is being driven through by a minority of residents. All residents were approached (or attempted to be on multiple occasions) and a majority signed a petition to seek a barrier/traffic calming issues. To reiterate - a majority support his approach.

4. I don't think it is relevant that this is being headed by a newish resident (not me for clarity!) - how many years into someone's residency are they allowed to be involved with this? It does seem that many longer term residents don't approve of this - perfectly valid opinions - however, an equal number of long term residents do, including a lady who has lived on the road since 1979 and has been working on this for 12 years or so I believe.

5. Clearly, a number of dissenters, Bobby P in particular, make good points as to the potential downsides - all that was passed last night was that there be a feasibility study conducted to see whether these are real concerns or not - as I hope has been clear, no one on this road wants to establish something that then shifts the issue elsewhere - I think everyone involved wants it to be looked at as a community issue not a MG specific issue.

It would be good to take the personal issues and the steam out of the argument - I would hope that both sides would support the feasibility study, which would then provide quantitive information for everyone to work with rather than just our own opinions. Personally, I can't believe that the two new schools were approved without an impact study on the local area and local traffic routes. If anyone knows if this was done and can share - that may help form some part of the new feasibility study.

[LalKJ]

Sorry everyone - my post overlapped with that of James B's - but at least doesn't contradict it!

[LalKJ]

sorry - I also don't know why that smiley face thing is there - not intentional and I don't even know how to put that in.

[Jenny1]

I think this is a terrible idea. I've lived on Melbourne Grove for 17 years and have never found there to be a problem with traffic. It is - in my view - a very quiet and safe road - given that it's in London. I do not own a car.

I assume the feasibility study will now happen (not a great use of 5-10 k of council tax in my view).

I accept that my voice is only that of one person. I also accept that the people who think there's a problem with speeding cars on Melbourne Grove have done a lot of work to get their petition signed by a lot of people.

James Barber states that in the traffic survey many of the vehicles using the Southern half of Melbourne Grove were found to be travelling faster than 20 mph. I would suggest that any study of any similar road in the borough would find precisely the same thing. Are we going to block them all off?

[James Barber]

Hi Jenny1,

Apparently the Police have expressed surprise that such a residential road would have such a huge volume of traffic - contrasts with Landcroft Road with 300 cars a day. So it's clear we have a serious rat run and the petition has a majority of residents on that road supporting the proposal.

Let all wait until we have a feasibility study and then talk about its methodology and understanding of options and forecast changes to our area.