Closure of Melbourne Grove to through traffic - new petition

[Abe_froeman]

Call me cynic but presumably in this instance they'll choose to start the study after summer holidays but before Townley Road reopens!

[EDAus]

A group of concerned residents living in Ashbourne Grove and Melbourne Grove have started a petition requesting that Southwark Council reconsider the proposal to block Melbourne Grove and instead implement a comprehensive traffic study for the area.

Melbourne Grove is a publicly funded and maintained road, our taxes pay for this road and 85% of community use this road in a law abiding and safe manner.

Below is a link to the Petition on Change.org:

https://www.change.org/p/southwark-council-no-barrier-for-melbourne-grove

If you are signing please ensure you put down the house/flat number and street that you live on e.g. Jo Smith, 120 Ashbourne Grove, East Dulwich SE22 8RL, so that Southwark Council knows you are a local resident and a stakeholder. You will be given the option to click a box which will hide your personal details if you so wish.

I would encourage all residents in the following streets to consider signing the petition:

1) Townley road - which would become an alternative main North/South route

2) Lordship Lane - would bear the load of additional traffic and pollution. Further, in emergencies where would the traffic go, Lordship Lane would become a car park?

3) Tell Grove/Blackwater/Bassano- with the new schools being opened parents will need to drop off students - where will they park? The whole length of Melbourne Grove and surrounding streets would be available to distribute this load/burden evenly. With the barrier these streets would bear an unbalanced burden.

4) Matham Grove - cars will cut through off East Dulwich Grove to get to Lordship Lane.

5) Chesterfield Grove - with the introduction of M&S and the schools, this street will become even busier, it also has a wide entry point at the western end so people are more likely to turn down this street than Ashbourne Grove etc.

6) Melbourne Grove North - the proposal does not address the numerous issues on this stretch of road, which has significantly greater levels of traffic in terms of volume

Remember: if you are signing please put down the house/flat number and street that you live one.g. Jo Smith, 120 Ashbourne Grove, East Dulwich SE22 8RL - so that Southwark Council knows you are a local resident and a stakeholder. You will be given the option to click a box which will hide your personal details if you so wish.

The survey has been created on-line via Change.org - this was for a very clear and specific reason - no hidden sheets of paper with unclear terms of reference, no absence of published transparent information - all the details are available to all. There is no ambiguity.

[James Barber]

Hi Charles Notice,

Don't you think closing those roads might be why they don't have lots of vehicles using them?

Hi ZT,

I believe milo Road was previously used as a cut through / rat-run. which is why it was closed.

The fact that no one can imagine those roads being rat-runs now suggests the closures have been incredibly successful.

I can't claim any involvement in these successes.

[James Barber]

Hi EDAus,

I think you've jumped the gun. The study hasn't even started for possible options to reduce traffic and speeds on Melbourne Grove.

The petition is worded well but then you've summarised the wider study you're asking for by saying don't close Melbourne Grove.

Why are you asking for a study you've pre determined the outcome.

Some of the points you've listed appear wrong. If Melbourne Grove was closed why would anyone divert to Townley Road?

I would have thought it makes more sense to call on the feasibility to be widened to cover the wider area and all local issues - we then need to list those local issues.

[Abe_froeman]

How can a petition call for a study to be widened if the scope or terms of reference of the study aren't published?

And how does this "Why are you asking for a study you've pre determined the outcome" fit with this "If I lived on Melbourne Grove, I would want it closed."?

[rch]

I don't think any gun has been jumped. I think that residents need to be clear that they don't want a barrier on Melbourne Grove and a No Barrier petition is the best way to do this.

And I agree with Abe that the subject of the feasibility study is so vague that we can only assume that the wording of the deputation is going to determine the study, in which case we don't believe that public money should be wasted on something that officers have advised against and that the community doesn't want.

[first mate]

James,

Think we need to stop calling the deputation request a petition. It has been demonstrated that in terms of the Council's own process the list of signatures you refer do does not constitute a petition.

As of now, can you as our representative at least call the deputation request by its proper name, just to keep the record straight, please.

Huge thanks to EDAus, RCH and others for organising the anti Melbourne block campaign. It would be great if this campaign could be widened to other aspects of ED traffic and road management and that somehow we can begin to get proper scrutiny and oversight of planning and decisions.

[Charles Notice]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi Charles Notice,

> Don't you think closing those roads might be why

> they don't have lots of vehicles using them?

>

> Hi ZT,

> I believe milo Road was previously used as a cut

> through / rat-run. which is why it was closed.

> The fact that no one can imagine those roads being

> rat-runs now suggests the closures have been

> incredibly successful.

>

> I can't claim any involvement in these successes.

I do think you will try any which way to make your view into what you think it should be for all.

They were never rat runs even when they were open. Could never understood why they were closed in the first place.

[EDAus]

James, you're either fundamentally misunderstanding what's going on here or deliberately misrepresenting it.

This is an actual example of concerned local residents trying to deal with the council "jumping the gun" on a roadside scheme that seems purpose-designed to lift the house prices of a few residents.

I'll remind you that said residents (largely absent from the East Dulwich Forum I note) demanded the closure of a public road immediately with no consultation. Local residents were informed via a letter two days before the above meeting in a way that seems deliberately designed to appear inclusive whilst minimizing the chances of any contrary voices actually being heard.

As you know, on 24 July Councillors of the East Dulwich and Village Wards were emailed a survey conducted by the residents of Ashbourne Grove, which detailed numerous concerns. I would post the response that residents received from you but we are still waiting...........................

Why should concerned residents trust in an undefined and unpublished feasibility study when they were not even consulted on the need for such a feasibility study in the first place?

*You've summarised the wider study you're asking for by saying don't close Melbourne Grove. Why are you asking for a study you've pre determined the outcome.*

Again, you appear to be ignoring the context here. The context is that you've been heavily championing this as the only possible solution to a problem with pretty vague but narrow terms of reference. And again, I'll remind you that if Melbourne Traffic Action had had their way, the barrier would be in place already.

It is my understanding that the Council's own officers do not believe that a barrier is appropriate for Melbourne Grove South. Therefore how would any robust, professionally constructed and executed study, undertaken by qualified council officers recommend the barrier currently being proposed for Melbourne Grove South?

*If Melbourne Grove was closed why would anyone divert to Townley Road?*

Let's take a concrete look at what happened two weeks ago. There was a serious accident on Lordship Lane - we wish the person a speedy recovery. We had back to back cars going down Ashbourne Grove and then onto Melbourne Grove through where the barrier is proposed. Now, while no-one wants that many cars on their streets, if it was blocked Townley Road would be the next best route.

*I would have thought it makes more sense to call on the feasibility to be widened to cover the wider area and all local issues - we then need to list those local issues.*

James, you're a councillor, why did you not propose this in the first place? If you think this is such a good idea, by all means go and do it. Please don't try to suggest something you have no intention of doing to try to combat objections to something your are actively advocating.

[Galileo]

The debate in our house tonight: what is wrong with a rat run? (btw I hereby declare an interest given 'our house' is on the Northern section of MG).

Our conclusion:

1. roads are designed for an appropriate amount of traffic - motorways, A-roads, B-roads and residential roads parked up on both sides (as ours is, and the Southern end of MG is)

2. the mentality of a proportion of rat run users is that this is their "quickest route" which "avoids traffic or delays" then if they encounter residents using the residential road in a usual manner, eg. loading, unloading, reverse parking into an impossibly tight spot because a load of rail commuters have parked the entire road up for the whole day, having the door open whilst they put a child into a car seat, they get frustrated and impatient because their route is not as quick as they had planned (and really, thanks for the warning from the bloke who almost took my car door off and me with it last week as he screamed round the corner from EDG to MG North and then shouted at me to "mind my door" ... I was putting a child into a car seat at the time.)

We're not 40+ year residents of the area (we're not even 40+) so I'm aware to some people we aren't entitled to an opinion on the state of the roads, but can I ask why people hate CPZs so much? We had them at my last place in Brixton and it was really good to be able to park and not have a load of people parking up all day to use the tube. I understand that people want to be able to park to use the local shops, visit the doctors, the library, the parks or to have tradespeople or friends visit them in their homes, but that could be achieved by having a 12-2 parking ticket requirement which would deter people from car-commuting to the train station thereby free-ing up spaces for those who want to use community services.

[Penguin68]

As I have said elsewhere (and posted on a thread then taken down) there are a number of actions made by the council and or supported by Mr Barber all of which tend to put pressures on motorists in ED either to reduce their numbers or to encourage them to nimby their ways into CPZs - thus raising revenues and further punishing them for having the temerity to own cars. This proposal; the introduction of more yellow lines; the never ending and pointless (and now apparently dangerous) road works, some clearly not following 'agreed' layouts; the yellow-lining around dropped curbs seem all about reducing road space for parking and making driving around ED increasingly difficult, time consuming and generally wearing.

This is either intentional (conspiracy/ hidden agendas) or demonstrates a huge facility for c*ck-ups. I tend now to see at the least a hidden agenda or two here. Car ownership (and worse, actually using cars) is seen by some as wholly anti-social, and anything which can punish car users, or can milk them of cash, is seen as fair game. Getting the turkeys to vote for Christmas by 'offering' them some better deal (private roads, parking in 'their' roads restricted to them - deals which will rebound horribly) is all part-and-parcel of this approach.

The attempts to demonise local car users (by calling them rat runners and suggest that those who use our roads aren't local - when by definition the most use of our roads will be made by local car owners, who have at least to start/ finish their journeys locally, if not only drive around ED) is something which frankly leaves a faintly unpleasant sensation.

[Galileo]

Penguin68 I am just talking about the parking pressure around ED Station, I have no knowledge about how CPZs would work or be needed in other areas of ED, but here we have your exact problem, only without CPZs. You can't use your car to visit a business or friend on the other side of ED because when you get home again you can't park it anywhere near your house (and I love to use the bus but frequently can't get on them because of the buggy). Equally other people can't just pop to our neck of the woods other than for an hour if one of the short term spaces is available at the top of the road, because there are no parking spaces from 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday - the rest of the time it's fine so it is obviously people parking up to use the station, not to use local services. A well thought-out CPZ around the station should free up parking spaces, enabling people to travel around ED, but not drive to the station to go to work.

[mockingbird]

Galileo Wrote:

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

> The debate in our house tonight: what is wrong

> with a rat run? (btw I hereby declare an interest

> given 'our house' is on the Northern section of

> MG).

>

> Our conclusion:

>

> 1. roads are designed for an appropriate amount of

> traffic - motorways, A-roads, B-roads and

> residential roads parked up on both sides (as ours

> is, and the Southern end of MG is)

>

> 2. the mentality of a proportion of rat run users

> is that this is their "quickest route" which

> "avoids traffic or delays" then if they encounter

> residents using the residential road in a usual

> manner, eg. loading, unloading, reverse parking

> into an impossibly tight spot because a load of

> rail commuters have parked the entire road up for

> the whole day, having the door open whilst they

> put a child into a car seat, they get frustrated

> and impatient because their route is not as quick

> as they had planned (and really, thanks for the

> warning from the bloke who almost took my car door

> off and me with it last week as he screamed round

> the corner from EDG to MG North and then shouted

> at me to "mind my door" ... I was putting a child

> into a car seat at the time.)

> .... etc and then on to discuss CPZ

Galileo

You point is understood but I don't see it helping this debate about a barrier. Many alternative measures could help if there is indeed a traffic calming issue. CPZ is an entirely different matter.

Did you sign in support of a barrier?

[ianr]

Of 55,918 cars in the 2014 sample of free-flowing traffic on built-up roads in Great Britain with a 30mph speed limit:

Average speed: 30 mph

Proportion exceeding limit: 45%

Proportion exceeding limit by more than 5 mph: 15%

(From Table SPE0102 at www.gov.uk/government/statistics/free-flow-vehicle-speeds-in-great-britain-2014).

The attached time series and time-of-day graph are from some of the other tables.

The contents page for more related PDF reports and Excel datasheets is at www.gov.uk/government/collections/speeds-statistics.

[rch]

The main root of the car issues in East Dulwich is lack of public transportation, especially considering that we've got 20 schools in the area. So, there's no point comparing schemes in Clapham or Brixton, as other locations have a far better transport infrastructure which enables residents to get out of their cars.

We had a major (i.e. expensive) consultation just a few years ago which rejected a CPZ, so there's no point in going round that circle again.

I totally understand the frustration that the North Melbournians have with parking in their area, but one creative way to address this may be to begin to negotiate with the NHS/CCG to provide a public car park behind the East Dulwich Station as part of the upcoming redevelopment of the site?

Another solution that has been discussed is an interconnecting local "green" bus service that specifically cycles around the ED/Village/Herne Hill high streets, schools, and train stations. If TfL aren't going to provide a service that addresses local needs, then we might as well start our own...

These solutions may not be financially possible, but I strongly believe that we need to start looking at more creative solutions rather than going around the same circles.

[Bobby P]

The petition wording makes a lot of sense to me: I have just signed it.

Anyone who would like to push for more common sense approach to this issue should do likewise, I think. The link is:

https://www.change.org/p/southwark-council-no-barrier-for-melbourne-grove?source_location=petitions_share_skip

[Bobby P]

Penguin68 Wrote:

> I tend now to see at the least a hidden

> agenda or two here. Car ownership (and worse,

> actually using cars) is seen by some as wholly

> anti-social, and anything which can punish car

> users, or can milk them of cash, is seen as fair

> game. Getting the turkeys to vote for Christmas by

> 'offering' them some better deal (private roads,

> parking in 'their' roads restricted to them -

> deals which will rebound horribly) is all

> part-and-parcel of this approach.

I could not agree more. Speaking as a cyclist, pedestrian AND motorist, I find it a little bewildering that a proportion of residents are so prone to fall for it each time such a "carrot" is dangled, until the arguments are aired and won anew.

[rch]

For completeness, here is the wording of the alternative petition... it's not just anti-barrier, but it calls instead for an overview study of the whole "East Dulwich Triangle" area:-

"We the undersigned don't want Melbourne Grove South blocked off by a barrier. We want joined-up thinking to make all our roads safer for everyone.

We want the whole community - young and old, drivers, pedestrians and cyclists - to be able to use our streets easily and safely. As residents we want the emergency services to have rapid access to our roads when we need their help.

We believe the best way to get safer shared streets for everyone is to call on Southwark Council to produce a comprehensive traffic management study to include all roads in the Grove Vale/Lordship Lane, East Dulwich Grove, Townley Road Triangle."

[rch]

There are also paper petitions - with exactly the same wording - available for those who would prefer not to sign on the internet. Residents from the roads connecting onto Melbourne are beginning to come forward with a view towards joining forces.

[Penguin68]

When the initial proposal about a CPZ surfaced a couple of years ago there was a lot of propaganda about 'foreigners' coming in to commute from ED Station and take 'our' parking spaces. However reviews of roads close to ED Station (i.e. Ondine) suggested that it was easier to park there during the day than at night, when Ondine car commuters returned to their homes (and the proposed CPZ layout would actually have reduced car spaces to park in Ondine). An alternative view was that roads became parked-up when people came in to ED to e.g. teach, work in shops and cafes etc. (i.e. to work in ED and provide services to people living in ED). Ondine is very handy for getting to the station, less so for working in Lordship Lane - so maybe the parkers in Melbourne aren't necessarily commuters using the station.

So an assumption that altering the road layouts or parking options just keeps out unwelcome foreigners 'passing through' may not be wholly correct, we may be keeping out those who are teaching our children, serving our coffees, doing our banking, selling us our food - actually making ED a good place to live.

I used a car to commute in South East London - driving to a job I had in Greenwich took 15-20 minutes - by public transport (and involving 2 or 3 changes) would have taken me between an hour and 90 minutes each way. People coming in to serve us frequently face the same commuting conundrum - 3 hours of travel by public transport a day, or less than 40 minutes by car. I know which I would choose.

[Jenny1]

Hi All

I thought I'd post the full Southwark Council officer's report about Melbourne Grove traffic to help the debate.

This is the report that the highways people at Southwark put together in response to concerns being raised about speed and volume of traffic. Councillors were given this report to inform their decision at the last DCC. I can quite see how - having read it - one councillor at least chose not to back a feasibility study.

Reading it does reinforce my sense of extreme frustration that others did not take the same view.

Melbourne Grove ? Briefing for Ward Councillors

The perception of speed and volumes of traffic on Melbourne Grove is causing

concern to local residents. Officers have received a petition, and a number of follow

up emails, and a deputation is to be made at Dulwich Community Council on Weds

24 June. This note has been prepared for all ward councillors to inform them of the

options available. The issue impacts on both East Dulwich and College wards since

the ward boundary runs down Melbourne Grove.

The area of road that is causing concern runs from East Dulwich Grove to Lordship

Lane. There is no controlled parking zone in operation.

In recent past the Council has introduced the borough wide 20MPH limit. The road

has a series of speed cushions along the full length.

The request from the residents was originally to have existing speed cushions

removed and replaced by speed humps.

An additional/alternative request is for the introduction of some form of filtered

permeability (closure) on Melbourne Grove between Tell Grove and Ashbourne

Grove.

Officers have previously advised that there is no funding currently available to make

further changes to Melbourne Grove. This is because the majority of Southwark?s

funding for improvements on the public highway comes from Transport for London.

There is limited funding each year and therefore a prioritisation of those funds is

applied. The highest priority goes to locations with clusters of road traffic accidents

or schemes that deliver wider transport objectives such as implementation of cycle

facilities. Currently Melbourne Grove does not record as a priority. The Council is

committed to reducing road traffic casualties and the introduction of speed reduction

measures has been a contributory factor towards the Mayor of London?s mandatory

performance targets.

It also should be noted that TfL issued this guidance in respect to the use of funding:

?Road humps: given the Mayor?s position on these, boroughs should exhaust all

other options before considering the use of vertical deflections such as road humps

and speed cushions. If a borough considers such measures to be the only viable

option then a further discussion may be needed with TfL on their acceptability.?

Officers would not recommend any form of restricted entry or closure on the public

highway unless the there were special circumstances. Any such proposal needs

detailed consideration given the likely impact on the wider highway network.

Current Situation

1) Review of road for speed and volumes - these were surveyed as part of the

Council?s recent implementation of borough-wide 20 MPH . Data collected in

February 2015 shows an average speed of 20 MPH and approx. 1000

vehicles per day in each direction. A further speed survey was undertaken by

met Police in April 2015 and recorded a mean speed of 18.5mph

Recorded road traffic accidents ? 2 reported collisions in last 3 years, 2 slight

casualties.

Officers are committed to undertaking further counts in 2016 as part of our

post-implementation 20mph review programme. However, given the data

currently available, Melbourne Grove is unlikely to be a high priority for action

in the near future.

2) In the interim, to improve road safety for all users officers propose to introduce

double yellow lines at all the junctions on Melbourne Grove to improve sight

lines. Recent observations noted a significant level of parking very close to

junctions. This is in contravention of the Highway Code - Waiting and parking

(242) DO NOT stop or park: ?opposite or within 10 metres (32 feet) of a

junction, except in an authorised parking space.?. Double Yellow lines will be

introduced, subject to consultation, to clarify where it is appropriate to park.

In regard to the investigation of new yellow lines, we will assess this during June/July

2015 and, assuming approval by the community council, works could begin in

December 2015. Read about how and when we assess Quarter 2 local parking

amendment items.

Should you require an update on the progress of the item, please contact the

investigating officer [email protected]

Future Options

3) Given the issue is not likely to be a corporate priority for some time, one

funding option that could be investigated is using Cleaner Greener Safer

funding. Applications for next year will considered in the autumn. Some

approximate costs to consider:

Feasibility study to investigate road closure - ?5-10k

Introduction of road closure - ?20-30k

Replacement of one set of cushions with full width sinusoidal hump - ?3-5k

Officers? view is that replacement of sets of cushions with new full width

humps is not likely to have a significant impact on vehicle speeds.

4) Transport for London have just re-launched Community Roadwatch -

working in partnership with the Metropolitan Police Service and City of London

Police to run Community Roadwatch - a road safety initiative which aims to

reduce speeding in residential areas.

Community Roadwatch will give local residents the opportunity to work side

by side with their local police teams, and use speed detection equipment to

identify speeding vehicles in their communities. Warning letters will be issued

where appropriate, and the information captured may help to inform the future

activity of local police teams.

Community Roadwatch is being rolled out across London in phases, with a

commitment to reach all London boroughs by December 2015. For further

information about the initiative, please contact

[email protected]

Matthew Hill

Public Realm Programme Manager

18 June 2015.

[Abe_froeman]

That's very interesting, thanks Jenny.

A segregation barrier seems completely out of kilter with the nature of other cleaner greener safer projects that received funding.

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/cleanergreenersafer

I do also wonder how the application for funds for this feasibility study was processed so quickly.

[Galileo]

Hi Penguin68, just to say thanks for taking the time to respond properly on the CPZ point, I hadn't thought of it like that. Good to hear a different perspective.

[Penguin68]

You're welcome

[@Woodwarde]

Jenny1 Wrote:

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

> Hi All

>

> I thought I'd post the full Southwark Council

> officer's report about Melbourne Grove traffic to

> help the debate.

>

............

Jenny1

Very helpful. I have not seen many of these Southwark officer briefings for the DCC Councillors as they do not seem to make it to the DCC report pack. Good to see this one. It gives a clear steer, echoes the April police traffic survey findings that the speeds are contained within expected limits and states that MG is not a problem or priority area in the broader set of priorities for Southwark. And so on the back of this briefing, Ward Councillors agreed a ?10k CSG funding allocation. This does not appear to be an appropriate use of public money.