Closure of Melbourne Grove to through traffic - new petition

[intexasatthe moment]

James - these points from rahrahrah and first mate remain unanswered .Can you help us with them ?

"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 ?"

"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? "

[Curmudgeon]

intexasatthe moment Wrote:

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

> James - these points from rahrahrah and first mate

> remain unanswered .Can you help us with them ?

>

> "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 ?"

>

> "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? "

Excellent questions

Melbourne Road has definitely been adversely affected by the current closure for, IMO unwarranted amends, of the Townley Road junction

All this tinkering just seems so short-sighted and lead by NIMBYism

[rch]

Yes, I'm also noticing the displaced traffic on Melbourne from the Townley works, as well. The first day was the worst, when one lane of EDG was closed in addition to Townley itself, but it's got slightly better since both lanes of EDG are now open. And the independent schools are now closed, otherwise it would be much worse.

[Penguin68]

I think you may find that the traffic in Melbourne has increased (although when I use it speeding has never been an issue) because the route through Lordship Lane has become increasingly tortuous as ever more lights and crossing places are installed (all, no doubt, for perfectly good reasons). These have mainly been installed between Goose Green and the old Police Station - pretty well the full run of Melbourne.

Not surprisingly the traffic (some at least of it, probably mainly of locals) has moved to the less restricted road.

So - another unintended consequence of traffic manipulation. You do not get rid of traffic by making life difficult for road users, you just displace traffic to somewhere less difficult. Every road that closes itself off just makes life for another road that much more problematic - shifting 'the problem' elsewhere. Of course Melbourners want to shift the problem onto someone else's back - even though there is little evidence of anything more than raised traffic levels (I cannot recall any serious accidents being reported here, at least).

I have, however, used Melbourne on a number of occasions when other roads have genuinely been blocked (by accidents, road works, water main bursts etc.) - to lose that option will be to place intolerable strains on an area already plagued by blocked and one-way streets, where options on alternative 'ways through' are already limited.

[first mate]

Actually, I don't think it is led by nimbyism, i think that nimbyism is carefully cultivated by Councillors keen to find any means of support for their anti- car pro cycling agenda and vision. After all, it seems the Melbourne call for road closure was led by a councillor.

The apparent tinkering here and there is actually part of a larger vision that is not admitted to. There is no real evidence to support their idea that their vision will improve lives, in their arrogance they will simply impose it and hope it all turns out as they hope. Locals that do suffer in the process are to be viewed as a sort of collateral damage, necessary to secure the greater "good".

Don't forget there is something about the temperament of those drawn to politics that involves an almost pathological self belief and sense of being right; the pursuit of a dream or ambition is unlikely to be derailed by dissenters in the electoral ranks, especially so soon after an election. This seems to be evidenced by the inability of those dissenting voices to properly be heard or represented. Those who are meant to represent us have a ready plan and that will be implemented by fair means or foul, whether we like it or not.

[James Barber]

Hi first mate,

So you're a mind reader as well. Amazing.

Hi P68,

The traffic counts recently done and from 5/6 years ago show remarkably similar traffic number along Melbourne Grove. So the lordship Lane changes between don't seem to have had an impact OR the very slight reduction in car ownership is SE London has countered it.

And if putting in pedestrian crossing where none existing is traffic manipulation then I plead guilty - and proud of it. Can anyone really imagine Lordship Lane without its crossings. I did originally want a zebra crossing which was blocked by TfL buses. And on reflection I think they were right to do that.

I'm not clear the north bound bus lane is sufficiently valuable to be kept - I'd welcome others views on that. And I do use buses to get around the area, as well as walking, cycling and horror of horrors a car.

Hi ITATM,

I believe I have answered questions posed.

[first mate]

James, you keep answering on the various issues bit by bit, and it is easy to figure the advantage of pursuing the debate in this manner, but what remains unanswered is the big picture? How are all these changes going to impact on traffic flow and congestion along LL and various side streets? Can you say that flow and congestion will be markedly improved overall?

[Penguin68]

James wrote

Hi P68,

The traffic counts recently done and from 5/6 years ago show remarkably similar traffic number along Melbourne Grove. So the lordship Lane changes between don't seem to have had an impact OR the very slight reduction in car ownership is SE London has countered it.

And if putting in pedestrian crossing where none existing is traffic manipulation then I plead guilty - and proud of it. Can anyone really imagine Lordship Lane without its crossings. I did originally want a zebra crossing which was blocked by TfL buses. And on reflection I think they were right to do that.

Several things:- (1) if the traffic has not increased over 5/6 years then the plea for closing the road seems to be somewhat novel - and as has been suggested elsewhere possibly manipulative. (2) I did not suggest that crossings were not needed (for safety grounds, to improve the LL shopping etc. experience and hence drive local business revenues) - I merely suggested that there were unintended consequences to traffic (flow) manipulation. And (3) - new thought - but forbidding heavy and commercial vehicles access to residential streets (save where they need actually to access properties in those streets) might well suffice to relieve many streets of problem traffic, and indeed consequential damage to properties caused by the meeting of heavy vehicles and sleeping policemen (wanted to revive that fine old terminology).

[intexasatthe moment]

"

James ,you say " I believe I have answered questions posed " but I .and others ,seem to have missed this .

Could you give a link/s to help us ?

I've put them in bullet points below for clarity .

1 What exactly is the issue you're trying to solve ?

2 what is it that makes Melbourne grove a special case compared to many other road in ED ?"

3 Where is the ED traffic overview,?

4 how will all these different things impact the area as a whole?

5 Who is/has looked at that...anyone? "

[Earl Aelfheah]

I am all in favour of radical action to (for example), increase cycling, or increase use and quality of public transport. But closing Melbourne Grove is not about these things. There has been no significant rise in the numbers of cars travellling along Melbourne grove, nor is there evidence of a particular problem with speeding...so what is the rationale for suddenly closing the road? What is the problem that needs solving with such a radical intervention?

[James Barber]

Hi P68,

1. It doesn't mean the traffic levels don't cause people problems. With lower levels of car ownership perhaps people are less forgiving.

2. Manipulative is quite a pejorative way of expressing yourself.

3. I agree with you and hope to see this covered in the feasibility report.

Hi first mate,

I'm trying to help answer questions as and when I can in between job, family, main councillor duties.

Hi ITATM,

1. I'm trying to help residents come to a solution to the problem they've raised.

2. It has far more traffic than almost all other ED residential roads.

3. The Southwark overview is undertaken by Southwark council working with TfL - they create a framework. But it means relatively little is spent in the Dulwich area so we use devolved budgets to try and fix local issues.

4. The feasibility report will tell us for this issue.

5. ditto

Hi rahrahrah,

Speeding is prevalent on Melbourne Grove and traffic levels are very high for an ED residential street.

Why wouldn't we do something radical? Please don't answer the feasibility report will give us the context to properly debate this.

I'm signing of from this topic until we have further developments on it.

[first mate]

So key questions ducked again, really disappointing.

I have no faith in this process now. Any feasibility study will result in a 'consultation' where the 'debate' will happen and where ' voices' will be heard but we all now know that these consultations are just a fig leaf. As I have said before, the councillors representing us are as one on this; dissenting voices will be screened out by massage of stats and 'evidence'. Councillors can also appear to support voices of protest while using superior knowledge of the byzantine twists and turns of council process to ensure things get through. Sorry to seem so darn cynical but this is exasperating.

[intexasatthe moment]

Thanks James .

Is there any data I could access that shows traffic levels in Southwark streets ? And would the TfL framework and Southwark's overview also be available ( to the likes of me ) somewhere ?

sorry ,just noticed James's remark about exiting this discussion for the time being .Anyone else know if data is available ?

Ah ,could be in the the doc attached to JB's post ( July 06, 01:20PM ) . Despite Sidhue's best efforts ,I've not managed to open this . Anyone read it ? Does it show traffic use of individual roads ?

[Andrew1011]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> I'm signing of from this topic until we have

> further developments on it.

Now there'll the chance to discuss people's thoughts this proposal without being diverted by James, and perhaps even organise opposition to it.

[ianr]

intexasatthe moment Wrote:

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

> Thanks James .

>

> Is there any data I could access that shows

> traffic levels in Southwark streets ?

As two of us mentioned here (pp 3 & 4) on 26 June, there is historic data at http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/3056/transport_data. The MG South figures appear close to those recently reported.

A useful exercise. Colour the Melbourne Grove rows in that spreadsheet to make them distinctive.

Then try ordering the spreadsheet by increasing (a) av. no vehicles, (b) av. speed © 85th percentile speed,

and in each case observe where the Melbourne Grove readings come within the rank order, and the range of values.

[intexasatthe moment]

Sorry ianr for forgetting that . I've downloaded something ( Zamzar ) which I hope will enable me to open the files .

Thanks for reminder .

[intexasatthe moment]

Doesn't seem to have worked . Oh well ,I'll just carry on being stupid and remaining ignorant . After all if I can't work out how to open the file I probably won't understand the content .

[ianr]

No need for ignorance. Siduhe (7 July, p.7) has already uploaded the Southwark historic traffic survey data spreadsheet, in the older .xls format, here: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/file.php?5,file=184603

While looking at that page I myself discovered the recent MG survey report, uploaded here by James at http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/file.php?5,file=184722.

[intexasatthe moment]

ianr thanks ,I'm aware of JB's attachment and also Sidhue's help - see my post yesterday "Ah ,could be in the the doc attached to JB's post ( July 06, 01:20PM ) . Despite Sidhue's best efforts ,I've not managed to open this ."

[ianr]

Sorry, itatm, my mistake. I'd assumed that the Southwark source had been an .xlsc, which it was't.

Anyone who doesn't have Windows Office could install a free alternative such as https://www.libreoffice.org/ which should enable them to read and write most Office documents such as spreadsheets.

[mockingbird]

This seems to be in limited email circulation. However - it provides an opportunity to comment on the effectiveness and procedures of the Dulwich Community Council generally and on any specifics of conduct. So a chance to reflect on this particular funding allocation perhaps?

Note deadline of Weds 15th July for responses.

Dear resident

This is a gentle reminder to ask you to give us your views about your experience of Community Councils to help us improve them- if you have not already done so.

We would therefore appreciate it if you could please take a few minutes to give us your views by answering the questions on the online questionnaire by going on this link (Just press the control button and click on the link)

http://tinyurl.com/nqtsbct

All responses are anonymous and the deadline for answering the questions is Wednesday 15th July 2015.

We are writing to you because your name is on our list as having attended one of our community council meetings and/or activities and regularly receive information about community council activities from us.

We look forward to hearing from you soon.

Thank you for your cooperation.

All the responses are anonymous. The last section of the questions asks people to provide information about their age, gender etc. This is because Southwark Council holds equality as central to the day-to-day delivery of its services and engagement with our diverse communities, and this information helps us measure and analyse how well we are engaging with all those who live and work in the borough. This also forms part of our legal responsibilities under the Public Sector Equality Duty of the Equality Act (2010). So, for example knowing that people from a certain age group are not attending the meetings, can help us adapt our meetings accordingly. Please also remember that this information is very useful for our work but you are not obliged to answer or complete any or all of it.

Please be assured that London Borough of Southwark holds and manages data in strict accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998. Southwark Council is the data controller for the purposes of the Data Protection Act. No personal information you have given us will be passed on to third parties for commercial purpose.

Correspondence Address:

Grace Semakula

Community Council Development Officer for Dulwich I Southwark Council

Housing & Community Services Dept, I Community Engagement Division I P.O.Box 64529 I London SE1P 5LX

TEL: 020 7525 4928

Mobile: 07852 334 065

Email: [email protected]

You can now be involved in community council discussions online, please go to https://forums.southwark.gov.uk or visit In My Area web page for Dulwich

Be involved in consultations: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/consultations

Follow us on facebook. http://www.southwark.gov.uk/residentinvolvement

The date of the next meeting Dulwich Community Council is Wednesday 9 September 2015, 7pm. Venue tbc

[Andrew1011]

mockingbird Wrote:

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

> This seems to be in limited email circulation.

> However - it provides an opportunity to comment on

> the effectiveness and procedures of the Dulwich

> Community Council generally and on any specifics

> of conduct. So a chance to reflect on this

> particular funding allocation perhaps?

> Note deadline of Weds 15th July for responses.

>

> Dear resident

> This is a gentle reminder to ask you to give us

> your views about your experience of Community

> Councils to help us improve them- if you have not

> already done so.

> We would therefore appreciate it if you could

> please take a few minutes to give us your views by

> answering the questions on the online

> questionnaire by going on this link (Just press

> the control button and click on the link)

>

> http://tinyurl.com/nqtsbct

>

> All responses are anonymous and the deadline for

> answering the questions is Wednesday 15th July

> 2015.

> We are writing to you because your name is on our

> list as having attended one of our community

> council meetings and/or activities and regularly

> receive information about community council

> activities from us.

> We look forward to hearing from you soon.

> Thank you for your cooperation.

> All the responses are anonymous. The last section

> of the questions asks people to provide

> information about their age, gender etc. This is

> because Southwark Council holds equality as

> central to the day-to-day delivery of its services

> and engagement with our diverse communities, and

> this information helps us measure and analyse how

> well we are engaging with all those who live and

> work in the borough. This also forms part of our

> legal responsibilities under the Public Sector

> Equality Duty of the Equality Act (2010). So, for

> example knowing that people from a certain age

> group are not attending the meetings, can help us

> adapt our meetings accordingly. Please also

> remember that this information is very useful for

> our work but you are not obliged to answer or

> complete any or all of it.

> Please be assured that London Borough of Southwark

> holds and manages data in strict accordance with

> the Data Protection Act 1998. Southwark Council is

> the data controller for the purposes of the Data

> Protection Act. No personal information you have

> given us will be passed on to third parties for

> commercial purpose.

>

> Correspondence Address:

> Grace Semakula

> Community Council Development Officer for Dulwich

> I Southwark Council

> Housing & Community Services Dept, I Community

> Engagement Division I P.O.Box 64529 I London SE1P

> 5LX

> TEL: 020 7525 4928

> Mobile: 07852 334 065

> Email: [email protected]

> You can now be involved in community council

> discussions online, please go to

> https://forums.southwark.gov.uk or visit In My

> Area web page for Dulwich

> Be involved in consultations:

> http://www.southwark.gov.uk/consultations

> Follow us on facebook.

> http://www.southwark.gov.uk/residentinvolvement

> The date of the next meeting Dulwich Community

> Council is Wednesday 9 September 2015, 7pm. Venue

> tbc

Very good idea. And perhaps including something about how initiatives local to one road, coming from nowhere and which have implications for the wider community, can be slipped in under the radar if a 'deputation' is quickly organised, possibly with insider assistance.

There needs at least to be a cooling off period to allow for proper and wider consultation before a costly, limited in scope and non-strategic 'feasibility study' is agreed and embarked upon.

[@Woodwarde]

I have just responded to this consultation and noted the lack of rigour around funding rationale and its allocation/approval, citing Melbourne G as an example of an inadequate funding approval process that should be reconsidered.

[Mustard]

...

[mockingbird]

nunhead_man Wrote:

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

> http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/13342487.Min

> i_Holland_cycling_scheme_that_has_split_community_

> _already_having_positive_impact_/?ref=mr&lp=4

This article references a legal challenege.

http://www.e17streets4all.co.uk/legal-challange.html

Wonder if they will share the basis of their challenge and concerns.

Also in the Evening Standard yesterday: City Corporation set to block half of the Quietway routes

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/cycling-quietway-routes-in-the-city-set-to-be-scrapped-despite-three-deaths-on-londons-roads-in-12-months-10384534.html