Closure of Melbourne Grove to through traffic - new petition

[traveler2]

I would support a barrier.

[power08]

Wouldn't it put pressure on Matham grove as there is no right run to Lordship lane from East Dulwich grove?

[spider69]

DadOf4 Wrote:

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

> using Google translate from Barberspeak to

> English:

>

> "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."

>

> Becomes

> "I think this is a great idea and it fits

> perfectly with my political agenda. However, I

> will pretend to be balanced in my opinions so as

> not to upset any objectors who could vote for me.

> I will gently lobby in favour, but always

> maintaining that I am yet undecided. I will

> present lots of facts that support the case "for"

> and give anecdotal examples of others who are in

> favour based on "doorstep conversations" I've had.

> But, still I will say that I will only decide once

> this has been properly debated & consulted on. I

> will then vote in favour of the scheme,

> irrespective of any strong local feelings"

>

> off he goes again

Spoken like Sir Humprey Appleby. You could have also included

It's clear that the Committee has agreed that the suggestion is really an excellent plan. But in view of some of the doubts being expressed, may I propose that I recall that after careful consideration, the considered view of the Committee was that, while they considered that the proposal met with broad approval in principle, that some of the principles were sufficiently fundamental in principle, and some of the considerations so complex and finely balanced in practice that in principle it was proposed that the sensible and prudent practice would be to submit the proposal for more detailed consideration, laying stress on the essential continuity of the new proposal with existing principles, the principle of the principal arguments which the proposal proposes and propounds for their approval. In principle.

[Bobby P]

sedm I think is correct, and I presume any unbiased research will support the obvious argument that blocking off alternative routes causes greater congestion and bottlenecking on those routes that remain open. In this case Lordship Lane/Grove Vale would suffer, and probably roads like Ashbourne which connect Melbourne to Lordship would be a lot busier too, if cars could not proceed along Melbourne to Grove Vale.

[intexasatthe moment]

There's an awful lot of traffic along Barry Rd .The situation is made worse because it lacks speed humps and is used by buses and other heavy traffic . Additionally because it is long and straight many vehicles reach excessive speeds .The number of joggers running the length of the road add to the mayhem and are a hazard for pedestrians .

I feel that the balance has shifted so that the use of the road for mobility reasons is completely out of balance with it's residential nature .The noise ,pollution and danger caused by vehicles along this road is much greater than that experienced by Melbourne Grove residents .

I understand that funds are limited in these days of austerity and that many traffic calming measures may be too costly so feel that the provision of gates at either end -junction with Lordship Lane and Peckham Rye ends and additionally at the Underhill Rd junction ( an accident hot spot ) and also the Upland Rd junction should be consulted on .

Southwark and local councillors are you listening ?

[intexasatthe moment]

It's clear that the Committee has agreed that the suggestion is really an excellent plan. But in view of some of the doubts being expressed, may I propose that I recall that after careful consideration, the considered view of the Committee was that, while they considered that the proposal met with broad approval in principle, that some of the principles were sufficiently fundamental in principle, and some of the considerations so complex and finely balanced in practice that in principle it was proposed that the sensible and prudent practice would be to submit the proposal for more detailed consideration, laying stress on the essential continuity of the new proposal with existing principles, the principle of the principal arguments which the proposal proposes and propounds for their approval. In principle.

lovely!

[edhistory]

Too complicated.

Try this:

A barrier removes six parking spaces.

Let's do it.

[intexasatthe moment]

Thanks for vote of support for blocking off Barry Rd edhistory .

4 gates x 6 car parking spaces = loss of 24 car parking spaces = greater likelihood of CPZ and lots of councillor support .

I'm on to a winner !

[DadOf4]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi Dadof4,

> Entertaining and wrong.

but you have got form for this: you did it for 4 months over the controlled parking

[James Barber]

Hi Otto,

That's useful to understand. Thank you.

Hi Bobby P,

Indeed I'd be surprised if we couldn't implement full road humps replacing the existing speed cushions - legally they could be replaced whenever Southwark council chooses. That's where residents were when they started. Cllr Charlie Smith had a brain wave when he met them with his Labour village ward colleague suggesting a full closure would do the job much more effectively. I agree it would. we're now assessing whether it would without problems for other street via a feasibility study.

Hi Richard Tudor,

That's how I see it yes.

Hi DadOf4,

No, you have an opinion which I don't share.

Hi edhistory,

A barrier doesn't have to remove six parking spaces - if it's close to a junction where people aren't meant to park it doesn't remove more than one space on the opposing side.

some bright spark has been complaining to council officers who are now looking into putting double yellow lines on all the junction corners around there to help enforce the Highway Code and sight lines. You'll see more of this in the autumn. Irony is better sight lines encourage speeding - council left hand and right hand...

Hi ITATM,

That's not how the committee felt on Weds at all. I would suggest the feeling was residents gave cogent arguments for something that may or may not be feasible. The residents shared a petition with a clear majority of affected Melbourne Grove residents in favour and many anecdotal comments from such residents and from neighbouring streets residents for it. They asked for an immediate temporary closure to test it. I proposed we allocate some funding to undertake a feasibility study and fellow committee members agreed. We await that feasibility study.

With regards to Barry Road - that is a principle road as well as residential street. I've repeatedly asked for average speed cameras to try taming it. You can't close principle roads as you've suggested except in truly exceptional circumstance. Even speed humps aren't likely on such bus routes. Neighbours of the raised tables are also suffering already due to volume of vehicles and how many are buses and lorries.

Hi Spider69,

You really don't know you Yes, Minister if you think my comments enter that world.

Hi power08,

Yes, it could put more traffic on Matham Grove - so IF the feasibility study suggests it could work and IF councillors were persuaded of the argument, and on the comments and support so far gained I would be in favour AT THIS MOMENT, then residents including Matham Grove would be consulted.

Cllr Rosie Shimell and I have put some work in over the years to reduce traffic on Matham Grove and speeding - full speed humps, entry treatment with East Dulwich Grove, removing the sign pointing people down Matham Grove. So I really wouldn't want that good work being undone.

[d.b]

traveler2: "On weekends in particular, we see a lot of traffic cutting from Lordship Lane to MG to access ED Grove and its plainly dangerous for residents of all ages."

Not sure how you can say this. There is some traffic yes, but it isn't dangerous. I cross the road pretty much every time I leave the house and 9 times out of 10 there is no issue, it is deserted or I have to wait for a single car to pass.

Note as well my previous link to a mapped record of all traffic accidents. There is literally no history of any accidents on MG for 10 years.

[James Barber]

Hi d.b

Clearly many people have different views on whether the street FEELS dangerous to them or they perceive something or not.

Certainly when I've spoken to traffic officers they explain that people perceive higher speeds than vehicles actually travelling at. But the traffic count shows excessive volume and speeding.

Yes, the reported crash rate shows nothing except crashes at the junctions of Melbourne Grove with East Dulwich Grove and Lordship Lane. We could expect these to reduce as far fewer people use them IF the study confirms most of the traffic is rat-running/non resident.

www.crashmap.co.uk doesn't have 2014 data yet - it normally comes mid august. But council officers and their consultant would get to see the most recent data for their study.

[Bobby P]

There was one crash recently (which I witnessed) at the corner of Ashbourne/Melbourne, involving a motorbike, but nothing to do with speeding, rather a turning car not seeing the bike.

Nothing in the proposals to block the road would stop these kind of incidents from happening, and it's disingenuous and misleading to suggest otherwise.

And if - as James B says - there have been incidents at the East Dulwich Grove and Lordship Lane junctions (very likely), then closing the road will merely displaces such occasional incidents to junctions at other alternative routes (which will also be busier).

It's pseudo-science and misuse of statistics to suggest otherwise. People should apply some critical thinking and basic logic.

[intexasatthe moment]

Ah yes of course , now I get it .

We have roads that combine being principal and residential .And these can't have gates .

And some roads are purely residential and can have gates . Even if they are important traffic through routes carrying lots of traffic .

So the people who live on roads like Barry Rd will suffer increased traffic ,pollution and accidents as they absorb the traffic displaced from roads that become no through roads .

And I would imagine the value of property in these gated havens will rise and that of property in the increasingly busy roads will fall .

An argument for lower council tax in principal roads I think .Although ,hang on a minute that won't work will it ? We'll all have to bear the cost of traffic works to make residential roads traffic free . And the added health and social costs for those living on principal roads .

Thank goodness we've got councillors carefully weighing up competing demands and ensuring that there is the correct balance between making roads purely residential and retaining mobility .

No doubt this is a scientific process involving masses of data and borough wide planning .And ear plugs to drown out the he who shouts loudest /is most articulate effect .

I can sleep easy in my bed ( suffocating with my windows closed because I live on a principal rd ) knowing that the correct balance will be achieved .

[Otto]

Hi -

Just to add to the conversation --

I often cycle down Melborne with my children and very often a speeding car scares my younger son onto the pavement - not ideal as I am trying to get him comfortable on the road. We cycle on roads with cars that travel just as fast, but, those roads are wider or have less parking and offer more space for both cars and bikes and he does not get frightened.

I support the feasibility study - if only to make it safer for children who cycle and walk - esp with the new schools opening. To be honest, Melbourne is handy and traffic displaced might not be ideal, but, worth looking at before it is shot down.

[wulfhound]

The high volume of traffic on main roads (which anyone can see is a problem) should not be an excuse to turn residential roads in to a traffic system - which is effectively what has happened by stealth over the past 20 years.

I can't blame the Melbourne residents for being fed up and wanting to do something about it. Lordship and EDG are where the traffic belongs - if those roads can't cope with it, other interventions are needed to create viable alternatives to a greater proportion of current car trips.

But.. the knock on effects of this and the proposed Calton closure on Townley need to be considered very carefully in relation to the Cycle Quietway. If the long term plan is for Townley to carry most/all of the cross-traffic (effectively being upgraded to a main road) & Calton is to be closed, that needs quite a different set of interventions to make the Quietway work than if both Melbourne and Calton remain open to traffic.

Final point.. if Melbourne Grove does get barriers, given the loss of parking spaces it might be worth asking to get some extra ZipCars put in! Life's much easier if you can walk past the barrier & choose a car from either side.

[intexasatthe moment]

All the roads in this area have seen increased volumes of traffic over the years . All the roads are residential - and guess what ,they're all part of the traffic system and always have been . They've not been turned into being part of a traffic system by stealth or any other means .

Improving one person's lot by making things worse for others ,particularly when it's unclear who or how this is arbitrated concerns me .

Will the residents in newly created no through roads be required to relinquish car ownership or will they be able to carry on adding to the pollution for the rest of us while isolating themselves from the effects of vehicle movements ?

[intexasatthe moment]

" But.. the knock on effects of this and the proposed Calton closure on Townley need to be considered very carefully in relation to the Cycle Quietway. If the long term plan is for Townley to carry most/all of the cross-traffic (effectively being upgraded to a main road) & Calton is to be closed, that needs quite a different set of interventions to make the Quietway work than if both Melbourne and Calton remain open to traffic. "

quite ,knock on effects .

I was really astonished to hear a council officer breezily bat away questions at a DCC meeting about the effect of the proposed changes to the Townley Rd on Calton Ave " not in the remit of the study " .

The thought of road closures now being at the whim of articulate middle class groups with Southwark forking out thousands of pounds for studies and no joined up thinking ,terrifies me .

[EDAus]

James - how can local residents provide input into the development of the feasibility study? Has a group, other than the Melbourne Grove delegation, been established, if so how do people join it?

If no group has been established are local residents living on potentially impacted streets i.e. Ashbourne Grove, Tell Grove, Matham Grove, Chesterfield Grove interested in forming one?

[intexasatthe moment]

Perhaps model yourselves on the Melbourne Grove group ? Collect data ,apply a little spin eg 22mph = speeding /breaking the speed limit ,get a petition ,form a delegation to present at a DCC . Oh ,and get councillors on your side .

[mockingbird]

and most importantly wait for a helpful community donation of ?5-10k

[rch]

Hang on, I think we need to do a factual accuracy check again... I'm not entirely convinced that the petition for the barrier actually constitutes a clear majority of residents.

In the deputation, they stated that they had 128 signatures which they claimed represented the majority of registered voters on the relevant section of Melbourne Grove. So, as an ex cllr, I got out an old electoral reg and counted approx 126 voters on the Village ward side alone (i.e. the west side), which is only HALF of the relevant part of Melbourne Grove - the other side being in East Dulwich ward (the east side).

I don't think people realise that Melbourne is actually the boundary between two wards... so, if the Vil ward side has 126 voters, would the ED side have roughly the same amount? This would mean that the total number of registered voters on the relevant section of the whole road is closer to 250, which then casts doubt over the claim that the petition represents a clear majority.

This number also sheds a bit of light on the volume of traffic using the road... if there are, say, 200 car owners on Melbourne coming and going every day, to say nothing of the immediate side streets feeding into it, you can quite quickly get up to 1000 journeys a day between going to and from work, school runs, shopping, after school activities within a thriving community.

As intexas says, the volume of traffic is increasing everywhere... and especially in the Dulwich area as the public transport is so bad.

So, it would be nice to know what the actual number of residents on the relevant section of Melbourne is... and how many drive cars (although those of us who don't drive also get a vote!)

Having said that, I don't think these figures will change the concerning displacement issue of a barrier. It just puts some of the stats being kicked around into perspective.

[rch]

And, for the record, I totally agree that Barry Road has more serious issues than Melbourne Grove. Plus, the junction of Barry with Lordship is regularly cited by the police as the worst hotspot in the Dulwich area.

Although Barry is classed as a principle road rather than a residential road, it could be very positively addressed with the same type of traffic calming measures as were recently implemented on East Dulwich Grove (which is also a bus route).

In fact, it's these types of measures that I'm suggesting for the Melbourne problem, as they have been shown to be effective with the least amount of knock-on problems.

[intexasatthe moment]

Ah ,more tips for EADus

In case you missed it - don't worry too much about how many signatures you get on the petition . Just claim that it's representative ,that should be good enough to get through the careful scrutiny given by Community Council meetings before they agree to dishing out thousands for studies .

[rch]

If someone wants to form a formal opposition group, let us know... I know loads of Melbourne Rebels who would join in with the side streets!