Closure of Melbourne Grove to through traffic - new petition

[Earl Aelfheah]

I live on Heber, cars speed down there all the time. It's used as a cut through or 'rat run' (AKA a road), and has a primary school on it. If I convinced my neighbours to be nimbys could we also get a barrier put up? Which other Roads could make a case? Goodrich, crystal Palace, Barry? Where does this nonsense end?

[tfwsoll]

'15% of those cars are going at excessive - or at least that is the interpretation local police have given to local residents'

As opposed to Lordship Lane between the police station and the library where the percentage of cars and buses travelling in excess of 30 mph - let alone the new 20 mph limit - is probably 85%. Because there is parking on both sides of Melbourne Grove I can't see how vehicles can get up to excessive speeds and if the vehicle figures are correct, this would mean a high level of two way traffic on that stretch, which would slow vehicles down?

[mockingbird]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi Mockingbird,

> 15% of those cars are going at excessive - or at

> least that is the interpretation local police have

> given to local residents.

>

> Hi P68,

> Residents were...........

I personally think

> it's a good idea in theory but we haven't had a

> study report back whether it would work or not or

> a public consultation about it.

Not sure how to respond to Councillor B's comments here. I don't feel they meet the test of objectivity.

This has the potential to be a divisive community issue and needs to be dealt with by our Councillors based on facts and consideration of impacts and best outcome overall. We need to live together and don't want this to set people against each other.

There may be a local pinch point issue at the top end of Melbourne Grove. We should work as a community to devise the best solution. This is unlikely to be barrier as it creates problems for others and for the local road network.

It is also clear that this is not a speeding problem. Councillor B will have had the training that all Councillors get with regard to interpreting these reports. They are a standard format, I now understand. I have been told that Southwark officers also created an accompanying briefing to position this April 2015 met police traffic survey report and to advise Councillors that there are areas of higher concern and priority.

I don't see the objectivity of a Councillor who states they are personally in favour of something and does not release relevant and factual information when that has been provided by the Council.

The 85th percentile is a long standing measure for the met police, traffic engineers and council officers and I don't buy the anecdotal statements the local bobby 'reportedly said', presented in a vacuum. I'd be surprised to find a Councillor who operates this way. I assume that the opinion is just badly expressed.

[Jenny1]

I want to echo some of mockingbird's concerns.

I fear that this issue is being handled in a way that sets parts of the community against each other.

This is a completely false conflict.

As stated in a previous post we do not have evidence that a majority of people on Melbourne Grove are calling for a barrier. Simply that the majority of the people on the road are in favour of general traffic calming measures.

[James Barber]

A concern has been raised. A report about assessing feasibility of options will take place. It will likely report early in the new year. a recommendation will be agreed. Any changes will then be consulted upon. A report of the consultation will be presented - probably June ish. Any agreed changed will take place in roughly 12 months time.

We've all gone around and around this which seems a bit premature at this point.

hi Mockingbird,

Let me be more precise. On the evidence I've seen and my experience along Melbourne Grove (southern section) I believe speeding is an issue and if possible we should make sufficient changes to resolve this.

The option to close one end is appealing as it would be the cheapest and have the most impact resolving this. However, I can entirely conceive this might cause unacceptable impacts. I can entirely conceive that even if the forecast impacts are acceptable that it could fail at the consultation stage. I have absolutely no made up my mind and any decision I take would not be fettered.

Hi Jenny1,

I think your concern may be unavoidable. If the majority of Melbourne Grove residents still want to close their road at one end and many other residents would prefer it wasn't closed then we will have different parts of our community with different views.

Hi rahrahrah,

Traffic counts show Heber Road has only a tiny fraction of the volume or speeding of Melbourne Grove. Cars do not speed down your road all the time.

Even so my then ward colleagues Cllr Richard Thomas and Cllr Jonathan Mitchell funded making your road and all the surrounding roads 20mph.

But lets suppose you're right. Your argument would appear to be my road has speeding traffic so others streets can't seek to address that problem on their road. Not exactly community spirited.

[nunhead_man]

James - why close at one end and not in the middle?

Either way can see this would be cheapest - also could be put in as a temporary measure to view impact

Also other measures have unwanted impacts;

* speed ramps / bumps - if too high rattle the foundations, too low do not control speed

* narrow road - already narrow due to parking

* central islands

* some type of chicane/narrowing (e.g. Ivydale Road) - might be an option?

[rch]

I agree with mockingbird and Jenny1 about the damage to the community that this is causing. The officer's report mentioned above makes exactly all the points that I've been making all along, which have upset some of my neighbours so much that they now won't speak to me.

I'm assuming that this is a confidential internal document, but if someone had sat down and gone through all of this with campaigners then it would save a lot of conflict as well as ?10,000 (plus another ?20-30K to actually implement a road closure).

What's even more concerning is that the officers have stated in the report that, to address the "perceived" issues of the residents, they now intend to introduce double yellow lines at ALL the junctions on Melbourne Grove as per the Highway Code Waiting and Parking policy 242. This means that cars will not be able to stop or park "opposite or within 10 metres (32 feet) of a junction, except in an authorised parking space".

If this goes ahead it would mean that Melbourne Grove South could lose up to FIVE parking spaces on either side of EVERY junction, plus a further amount of spaces across from the junction. Plus, it would set a precedent to implement these measures on ALL the roads in East Dulwich.

Creating these gaps would easily address the issues of the difficulty of cars passing in the narrow section of Melbourne between Ashbourne and Chesterfield, but the knock-on effect of losing that amount of parking (between 30-50 spaces) in Melbourne will be intense.

The double yellow line solution was to be investigated during June and July with a view towards implementing it in December 2015, subject to consultation.

On one hand, I can't see this proposed solution actually passing a consultation... but, on the other hand, there is no reason why the council can't enforce the Highway Code.

Although loss of parking doesn't affect me, because I don't drive, I have fought long and hard over the years to retain parking spaces and freedom of movement in my neighbourhood, to say nothing of avoiding the ugly urban yellow line curse.

It will be interesting to see what happens...

[Jenny1]

Hi James

You said

'Hi Jenny1,

I think your concern may be unavoidable. If the majority of Melbourne Grove residents still want to close their road at one end and many other residents would prefer it wasn't closed then we will have different parts of our community with different views.'

But that's my point James. My concern is completely avoidable. We absolutely do not know that a majority of the residents of Melbourne Grove want to close their road at one end. Have you noted my posts about the difference between a petition calling for a specific measure (which we do not have) and an informal list of signatures calling for general traffic calming measures (which we do have)?

The distinction is very important.

[rch]

On the third hand, everyone is entitled to whatever opinion they want to have... the overriding detail here is that, no matter what people THINK, the bottom line is that the objective reality defined by statistics and legislation is what will prevail, no matter how angry anyone gets.

[richard tudor]

How will closing one end of the road stop the speeding you keep mentioning

There is still road from point A to B. Open end closed end

[first mate]

rch,

Do the changes you mention about waiting and yellow lines on Melbourne appear in the new Waiting and Loading restrictions Consolidation Order- see below

Public notice

Consolidation of waiting and loading restrictions

The London Borough of Southwark (Waiting and loading restrictions) Consolidation Order

30th July 2015

As you will have seen on the Townley thread some of us are wondering if the above is just consolidation of what already exists or a means to sneak in new restrictions?

Sorry if I am taking things of thread, do not mean to just want to understand the above.

Further reducing parking on Melbourne and surrounding streets seems madness of the highest order and CPZ by stealth, but I am not surprised at the divide and rule tactics that seem to be going on.

[@Woodwarde]

Here's what it says. Has this been through consultation?

658. MELBOURNE GROVE

(a) both sides, between the southern kerb-line of Grove Vale and a

point 10 metres south of that kerb-line;

At any time

SCHEDULE 1 -WAITING RESTRICTIONS

LBS_2015_082.docx

Page 272 of 470

Item No.

(1)

Street or length of street

(2)

Prescribed hours

(3)

(b) the east, south-east and north-east side

(i) between a point 1.5 metres north-east of the common

boundary of Nos. 7 and 9 Melbourne Grove and the common

boundary of Nos. 13-15 and 17 Melbourne Grove;

At any time

(ii) between a point 11.5 metres north-west of the north-western

kerb-line of East Dulwich Grove and a point 13 metres southeast

of the south-eastern kerb-line of East Dulwich Grove;

At any time

(iii) between a point 5.3 metres north of the northern kerb-line of

Ashbourne Grove and a point 5 metres south of the southern

kerb-line of Ashbourne Grove;

At any time

(iv) between the southern kerb-line of Chesterfield Grove and a

point 7.8 metres south of that kerb-line;

At any time

(v) between the north-western kerb-line build-out of Lordship

Lane and a point 12 metres north-west of that kerb-line;

At any time

© the west and south-west side

(i) between a point 10 metres south of the southern kerb-line of

Grove Vale a point 3 metres north-east of the south-western

wall of Nos. 5/6 Melbourne Terrace, Melbourne Grove;

8.30 am to 6.30 pm

Monday to Saturday

(ii) between a point 1.5 metres north-east of the south-western

wall of No. 2 Melbourne Grove and a point 5.5 metres northwest

of the common boundary of Nos. 4 and 6 Melbourne

Grove;

At any time

(iii) between a point 4 metres north-west of the north-western

kerb-line of Jarvis Road and a point 4 metres south-east of

the south-eastern kerb-line of Jarvis Road;

At any time

(iv) between a point 11.5 metres north-west of the north-western

kerb-line of East Dulwich Grove and a point 13.5 metres

south-east of the south-eastern kerb-line build-out of East

Dulwich Grove;

At any time

(v) between the north-western kerb-line of Lordship Lane and a

point 9.8 metres north-west of that kerb-line.

At any time

[Bobby P]

James says:

"On the evidence I've seen and my experience along Melbourne Grove (southern section) I believe speeding is an issue and if possible we should make sufficient changes to resolve this. The option to close one end is appealing as it would be the cheapest and have the most impact resolving this."

James, while the evidence from the traffic surveys which we can read for ourselves thanks to dedicated people on this forum really doesn't back up the existence of a speeding problem, I would still like you to explain in simple terms why a barrier at one end of the road "would have the most impact resolving" alleged speeding.

It may or may not reduce the amount of traffic, but cars would be prone to drive just as fast along the road as before, and likely even faster if there are less vehicles coming in the opposite direction and give them pause on the narrow section (or if many parking spaces/parked cars are removed by yellow lines around junctions, as RCH has mentioned). Cars will simply continue to drive down the road and then exit up Ashbourne or Chesterfield, but why would they suddenly be driving more slowly? What is my expensively educated brain missing here?

(I actually think the removal of multiple parking spaces around all the junctions, as per RCH's and @Woodwarde's post above, is of even greater concern than the barrier: to restrict parking on Melbourne, and other roads, to such a large extent conveniently paves the way towards another attempt to force through the CPZ that both James and the Council are on record as hoping to install.)

[Earl Aelfheah]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> But lets suppose you're right. Your argument would

> appear to be my road has speeding traffic so

> others streets can't seek to address that problem

> on their road. Not exactly community spirited.

No James, you misunderstand my point. My point is that all roads have speeding / through traffic. Instead of closing roads, we should police them. We shouldn't just move the problem around. Your logic taken to it's natural conclusion is that the solution to speeding is getting rid of roads.

The point of my post was EXACTLY that I would not like to see my road closed to cars.

[richard tudor]

I asked this question 4 hours ago. Let's hope your articulate post brings results.

I suspect this has been decided already.

[Bobby P]

Yes, richard. You got there first, more succinctly than me! Would be nice if we got an answer based on actual critical thinking and practical example rather than wishy washy obfuscation.

[rch]

OMG, first mate and Woodward!

It does indeed look like some of the double yellows have made it into this notice! They've folded the Ashbourne and Chesterfield junctions along with some of Melbourne North into some of the markings around the new junctions at Melbourne and EDG. They're not doing the full 10 metres, though, just five metres, but that's still quite a lot.

It doesn't look like they've come down as far as Blackwater and Colwell, though...

Cripes, will have to print this out and walk through it tomorrow, to be sure where north and south are.

Don't worry about overlapping threads, it looks like everything else is overlapping, so this is really useful.

[first mate]

Yes, it looks sneaky. Lots of TMOS with lots of new yellow lines reducing lots of parking spaces, all misleadingly lumped under the title of "consolidation", while we've all been been kept busy focussing on the barrier issue.

Well done Woodwarde for spotting this one and rch please do reveal the full extent of the "agenda" when you have had a chance to look.

Can I also ask James to comment on the above?

[rch]

It's all just beginning to sink in, first mate. Our Melbourne bit is on page 273 of a 471 page document! It looks like the junctions of Ashbourne and Chesterfield with Melbourne are definitely going to be yellow-lined. Ashbourne gets 5 metre lines and southern end of the Chesterfield junct gets 7.8 metres. Will walk it tomorrow.

This was hinted at in the officer's briefing for cllrs on the "perceived" speeding and volume problems on Melbourne for the June 24th DCC meeting, so cllrs would have been notified of what was coming... but connecting all the dots is difficult because the information is so buried.

I guess the lesson is... be careful what you campaign for, because you just might get it, albeit not in the form that you expect.

[tfwsoll]

>>No James, you misunderstand my point. My point is that all roads have speeding / through traffic. Instead of closing roads, we should police them. We shouldn't just move the problem around. Your logic taken to it's natural conclusion is that the solution to speeding is getting rid of roads. The point of my post was EXACTLY that I would not like to see my road closed to cars.

I agree with you rahrahrah. The point I was trying to make is that Southwark have introduced a 20mph speed limit on Lordship Lane, with all of the associated costs, which is ignored. A very high proportion of cars and buses speed down the hill well in excess of 30mph. Instead of anyone actually policing the speed limit in SE22, I read that Southwark are proposing to spend money blocking off Melbourne Grove where there doesn't seem to be overwhelming evidence of speeding. I think the telling comment is that this is the cheapest option rather than alternative traffic calming measures.

[richard tudor]

Why has Cllr Barber remainder so tight lipped on all of this.

Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer. Perhaps it is time to have full time, fully paid Cllrs and not part time amateurs.

We would then get the service and answers that are required.

Having worked for Local Authorites you really have to dig deep to join up all the dots. No one gas the time to keep track of all what is being quietly passed.

[MarkT]

If the purpose is to reduce speed in Melbourne Grove then surely putting double yellow lines at all the junctions will be counter-productive.

It will provide a lot of passing places of sufficient length to allow passing at speed. It will also increase the visibility in and out of each junction ?

?research now suggests that providing excessive visibility can also introduce dangers as it may increase the speed that people drive or ride at.? (Southwark Streetscape Design Manual SDM DS114 Highway visibility).

MarkT

[first mate]

I really don't think the aim is to reduce speed. The real issue is reducing parking and then cars, this is a more oblique way of doing it. Our local Councillor campaigned long and hard for CPZ so I cannot see that he would object to or stand in the way of anything that achieves a similar result. After all, if parking is sufficiently reduced there will be some that clamour for CPZ.

Parking is being reduced by one method or another all over ED and Dulwich, this suits the purposes of the Southwark administration and, I fear, our own Councillor, though I very much hope he comes on here to say I am wrong.

[richard tudor]

He will respond saying he is not in power. I have tried to stop all this.

[first mate]

Nonetheless, I would hope that our locally elected rep would at least come on and give his take on this most recent revelation and explain how he sees this impacting the streets in question, not to mention the wider area. We have to keep thinking of the whole, the sum effects of all these changes, not just street by street.