Closure of Melbourne Grove to through traffic - new petition

[first mate]

XIX,

Precisely. I am sure James knows this but nothing, absolutely nothing must be allowed to obstruct the anti car/ cycling agenda, which both he and Labour support. All very well if, like the bulk of Councillors, you are young, fit and healthy, then this cycling utopia looks marvellous, but for the rest....

I am also intrigued by James' assertion to P68 that more people on Ashbourne and Chesterfield voted for closure than did residents on Melbourne. When was that then? And can we see the evidence please?

I have to add that although the Harris build will be finite, if, as James suggests, closure of Melbourne siphons more traffic onto Lordship it sounds potentially chaotic. Unless he can guarantee here and now that pavements will not be closed and building vehicles lined up along the Lane, during the Harris build? Additionally, won't all the work on Townley place more pressure on LL? Won't the building out of pavements on Nx squeeze traffic further? I can see a situation where we'll have queues of bumper to bumper irate drivers and cyclists manically weaving in and out.

Seriously you cannot do studies on individual junctions/roads and use these as evidence to prop up funding requests. Where is the ED traffic overview, how will all these different things impact the area as a whole? Who is/has looked at that...anyone?

Just as an aside, since 20mph I think drivers are speeding even more, it's almost might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb. We all know the hot weather brings out madness in some but I've seen crazy driving and cycling in the last week. I'm not sure this insidious tactic of keep turning up the pressure on car drivers in the hope they'll all disappear is working.

[James Barber]

You've made my day first mate. I do feel a young 51 !

I'm not anti car - I use them often enough. I'm in favour of people before cars where we have to decide between the two. London's population is expected to increase by 25%. So ye, we are going to be under increasing pressure with many more people travelling through our patch.

P68 response is poor grammar on my part. P68 suggested we would support Melbourne Grove residents closing their road as they have more voters than Chesterfield or Ashbourne.

Ive not seen the Harris Construction mgmt. plan so I can't tell you what it will contain yet.

North Cross Road/Lordship Lane build-outs are taking place where Lordship lane is two lanes wide but traffic can only flow in one lane. Dead road space which will be given over to pedestrians.

[rch]

I'm the former cllr that is being referred to and, yes, the ongoing orchard vandalism has definitely had an effect on how much energy I put into community projects.

And I did have the audacity to speak out during the deputation as some of the facts quoted were so questionable that other local residents sitting with me were also getting increasingly upset. Unfortunately the deputation wasn't recorded, so I can't prove what I thought I heard and the clerk's notes were interrupted by my objections.

But residents are still stopping me in the street and emailing me, asking me for my advice on how their voices can be heard, so hopefully an alternative campaign will emerge.

And I'm still going to consistently try to correct disinformation...

For instance, in above posts in this thread, it's now being stated that 55% of Melbourne Grove residents have signed the petition in favour of the barrier... but in the deputation it was stated that a majority of REGISTERED VOTERS on Melbourne Grove signed the petition, which would exclude any residents under the age of 18... which in turn casts a question of what percentage of RESIDENTS actually signed the petition. In theory, anyone of any age can sign a petition but then we need to determine how many residents live on the road, as opposed to how many registered voters, in order to confirm what the majority opinion is.

And we STILL don't know how many residents/registered voters signed the speed hump petition and how many signed the barrier petition.

[Penguin68]

Hi P68,

More voters on Ashbourne, Chesterfield individually than the section of Melbourne Grove proposed to have a closure. This isn't about votes.

Slightly disingenuous, James, as it is the totality of those living in Melbourne Grove who will 'benefit' from the road being blocked (as regards through traffic from LL at Mr Liu's through to ED Grove) and not just those living in the section proposed to become a gated community.

[James Barber]

Hi Robin,

Because of those questions I'd a quick sample of the petition of 138 and all bar one of the 20 sample were on the electoral roll.

Not sure if any one has posted the Police organised report on traffic levels and speeds - please see attached.

[Jenny1]

Hi James

Don't worry about having shredded the petition - I've asked Southwark Council officers to let us know the exact wording and will pass that on once I receive it.

The reason why I think it's important to know the precise wording is that I'm concerned that the 138 people who signed the petition may have put their names to a request for 'traffic calming measures' - which clearly covers a number of options that fall a long way short of a barrier. If that's the case it would hardly be fair for their names to be used as 'backing' for such a proposal. You mention that some of those who signed the petition did not infact live on Melbourne Grove South. I assume then that your previous estimate that the petition was signed by 55% of residents of Melbourne Grove South must now be adjusted downwards?

You mentioned full width speed bumps as another option for the street. Other threads on the forum have shown how those full width bumps have recently caused so much noise and structural damage to houses in the area that they've had to be removed. I doubt they will be considered a viable option by traffic engineers in the wake of those problems.

Other traffic calming options are available of course.

(corrected to amend figures)

[intexasatthe moment]

Is it just me or is anyone else confused how it's possible for James to check the signatures on the shredded petition but not the subject matter ?

[Andrew1011]

rch Wrote:

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

> But residents are still stopping me in the street

> and emailing me, asking me for my advice on how

> their voices can be heard, so hopefully an

> alternative campaign will emerge.

I'd certainly be party to that campaign.

rch Wrote:

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

> And I'm still going to consistently try to correct

> disinformation...

>

> For instance, in above posts in this thread, it's

> now being stated that 55% of Melbourne Grove

> residents have signed the petition in favour of

> the barrier... but in the deputation it was stated

> that a majority of REGISTERED VOTERS on Melbourne

> Grove signed the petition, which would exclude any

> residents under the age of 18... which in turn

> casts a question of what percentage of RESIDENTS

> actually signed the petition. In theory, anyone

> of any age can sign a petition but then we need to

> determine how many residents live on the road, as

> opposed to how many registered voters, in order to

> confirm what the majority opinion is.

>

> And we STILL don't know how many

> residents/registered voters signed the speed hump

> petition and how many signed the barrier petition.

Exactly.

[James Barber]

Hi Jenny1,

The noise issues from bumps is mostly from raised treatment - where the whole cross roads is raised e.g. junction of Melbourne Grove with East Dulwich Grove, Barry Road with Goodrich Road. But full bumps do sometimes cause problem especially if not precisely installed.

I'm pretty sure the petition was about closing the road but good to double check.

[first mate]

James, other than the occasional petrol head I think everyone would put people before cars, it is an empty phrase and does not mean much at all.

I wanted to know how you see all these different schemes impacting on traffic and parking along ldship lane and the side streets? For those locals using cars or buses will there be fewer road traffic queues or not? Will journey times improve or not? Will there be fewer parking spaces for local residents throughout the day or not?

We know that you cannot look at streets in isolation since whatever happens on one tends to affect the next, so as our locally elected councillor can you please give an overview of how you expect things to improve for the majority of locals, most of whom do not cycle?

[Charles Notice]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi Jenny1,

> The noise issues from bumps is mostly from raised

> treatment - where the whole cross roads is raised

> e.g. junction of Melbourne Grove with East Dulwich

> Grove, Barry Road with Goodrich Road. But full

> bumps do sometimes cause problem especially if not

> precisely installed.

>

> I'm pretty sure the petition was about closing the

> road but good to double check.

If you are backing this proposal I would have thought you should have known 100% what the petition actually said.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I think we should all start campaigns to close the roads we live on to traffic. Let's get every one of them closed, including Lordship Lane. That'll stop people using them as 'rat runs' and no one will have a problem parking their car outside there house, as long as it's parked there at the time of universal road closure.

[Charles Notice]

How do you know people are not doing this? you only get to hear when it creeps in to Council Meetings for approval or handouts. Cllrs are not likely to put it out to the wider world to oppose if they are in favour.

[Zebedee Tring]

I cannot believe that at least one Councillor on the DCC who agreed to fund this study on very little evidence, at a time of enormous financial constraints, can't tell us what the petition actually said. Words fail me.

[Andrew1011]

intexasatthe moment Wrote:

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

> Is it just me or is anyone else confused how it's

> possible for James to check the signatures on the

> shredded petition but not the subject matter ?

Yes, I was a but puzzled by that too.

[Andrew1011]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi Jenny1,

> The noise issues from bumps is mostly from raised

> treatment - where the whole cross roads is raised

> e.g. junction of Melbourne Grove with East Dulwich

> Grove, Barry Road with Goodrich Road. But full

> bumps do sometimes cause problem especially if not

> precisely installed.

James, you appear to have misunderstood what people are actually saying and the breadth of the concerns they are expressing.

[James Barber]

Hi first mate,

It was only a very few years ago people were campaigning to allow cars on all roads in Dulwich Park and not just people with disabilities. This argument has only finally died down in the last year or so...

My colleagues and have led on changes to add two crossings to Lordship Lane, raised entry treatments along most of Lordship Lane side roads, full width bumps on Chesterfield, Ashbourne, Hindmans, etc and 20mph on all other ED roads. I hope this all counts as making it better for all residents. I'd like to see better adherence to 20mph on residential roads. I'm not keen on more humps and bumps as they cause other problems. I am keen to explore average speed cameras for roads such as Barry Road.

I do think we need to improve the pavements locally especially Lordship Lane and we've allocated some of our limited resources to this. We need to do more - tricky as pavement works can really damage businesses unless executed very quickly.

I see no change in the number of parking spaces from these changes. We're currently exploring how we can released North Cross Road on Fridays for parking - currently it's restricted for a near non existent Friday market. This would build on our work ending the figment of officers imagination of the market operating Mon-Thurs and parking restrictions related to that we had removed about three years ago.

Where we have road space not used by vehicles but pedestrian congestion I will seek moving it to extra pavement space where it will make walking more attractive.

Certainly if people rely on using Melbourne Grove as a rat-run they may have longer journey times IF the feasibility study says closing that road would work AND the idea passes consultation. I'm not aware of any other proposals for our area that could affect journey times.

I am aware of a proposal officers are working on of placing double yellow lines on junction corners across East Dulwich to make it clearer about what is considered dangerous parking. Apparently a number of complaints about this.

When it comes through I expect to fight for less excessive double yellow lining. The Village ward councillors agreed this at the last Dulwich Community Council for the N.Dulwich triangle and looked a bit miffed when I pressed the point that it looked OTT. They still proceeded. Expectation that it will happen with the CPZ there and no one will really mind. If the CPZ doesn't proceed there it will add unnecessary mayhem.

[first mate]

Hi James,

Thanks for all that but just to return to my central question, are you saying there will be no effect on traffic flow and journey times by car or by bus along Lordship Lane as the result of all the changes (Townley,Nx,20mph,Melbourne, major builds- at M&S and Harris/police station)? Surely such extensive change and expenditure should result in improvements for the bulk of residents? Will this be the case- journey times via motor transport being crucial to most?

[James Barber]

Hi first mate,

I don't know - which is why we have a feasibility study.

But I would make an observation. With Thames Water closing Underhill Road for a number of weeks I was expecting traffic chaos. Which is why I fought hard to see if it could be kept open. Underhill Road has something like close to 5,000 cars per day going north and south. But no one seems that bothered.

It appears that as a compels system people adjust. it might be that closing Melbourne Grove is a step too far. But it seems more probable that people will adjust.

[nunhead_man]

http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/13342487.Mini_Holland_cycling_scheme_that_has_split_community__already_having_positive_impact_/?ref=mr&lp=4

[Earl Aelfheah]

@james barber - why is it considered inappropriate for people to drive down a road they don't live on? I genuinely don he it. Are all roads supposed to be acces only? What exactly is the issue you're trying to solve and what is it that makes Melbourne grove a special case compared to many other road in ED ?

[trizza]

James

I also thought that closing Underhill would cause major issues, but it hasn't. I live on St Aidan's and we have had Thames Water digging up the road since March and there are traffic restrictions in place. However, the traffic flow around the area has been fine. Infact, more than fine as whilst residents can still access the area it has stopped a lot of traffic trying to take shortcuts. I haven't seen any major increase in the traffic on the main roads as a result.

Overall the whole areas is a lot calmer and I thought I would never say this but I may be sad to see Thames Water leave!

[henryb]

Yes I agree with that about Underhill and I don't live on it. Residential side streets should primarily be for residents - not for speeding motorists who want a short cut to avoid traffic lights.

[XIX]

James,

I think you miss the point in saying "It appears that as a compels system people adjust. it might be that closing Melbourne Grove is a step too far. But it seems more probable that people will adjust."

Drivers adjusting to the change is a side issue here - it is not the main point of contention - yes they will be a bit inconvenienced by having to take a different route and yes they will likely adjust. The main point here is (or should be) the impact on local residents in terms of traffic displacement etc.

So using the argument that it will be fine and people will just get on with it to justify your support disregards the main point which should be central to the debate - the legitimate concerns of those on neighbouring roads.

[wulfhound]

I am aware of a proposal officers are working on of placing double yellow lines on junction corners across East Dulwich to make it clearer about what is considered dangerous parking. Apparently a number of complaints about this.

Could you ask them to take a look at Crystal Palace Road on that front please? Visibility on some of those corners is really bad - particular hazard for small/low cars pulling out from side roads trying to spot cyclists coming down the hill & vice versa. Southwark Spine is only going to increase numbers there.

Yes I agree with that about Underhill and I don't live on it. Residential side streets should primarily be for residents - not for speeding motorists who want a short cut to avoid traffic lights.

Hear hear.

So using the argument that it will be fine and people will just get on with it to justify your support disregards the main point which should be central to the debate - the legitimate concerns of those on neighbouring roads.

You're absolutely right - although I tend to see that as an argument for more thorough interventions, rather than doing nothing.