Closure of Melbourne Grove to through traffic - new petition

[Andrew1011]

henryb Wrote:

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

> I don?t quite see how 15% of vehicles going 25%

> over the speed limit is not a significant amount

> of speeding. Regardless of the fact that the limit

> is 20mph not 25mph - would anyone use the

> argument that because only 15% of people were

> breaking the law it isn?t a problem, for any other

> type of illegal behaviour?

I doubt it's any different for any other through road in the area and most people, quite reasonably in my view, wouldn't want Melbourne Grove to become a precedent for others to call for their roads to be closed to traffic.

>

> Surely this is an issue for residents of Melbourne

> Grove ? not Black Cab drivers from Stanwell that

> the online petition is attracting.

I'd hope the names addresses of signatories will be taken into account (e.g. checked against the electoral roll), as it rightly should be, by those receiving the latest petition. However, this is not just an issue for Melbourne Grove residents as it is bound to impact on the other roads and the local area. A key role of a local authority, or indeed a community council in Southwark, is to look at issues strategically in terms of the area it covers; not simply road by road.

[Jenny1]

Hi henryb

I just wanted to answer your specific point about who is signing up to the 'new' petition. I have now had a chance to analyse the signatures on both the online and paper petitions submitted to Southwark as of 02/09.

I can confirm that of the 225 who signed up (counting online and paper signatures) there are 7 people who might fall into the 'more distant supporter' category - and should be discounted - and some of them may indeed be black cab drivers! The rest live in Melbourne Grove or streets leading directly into it - or are in local post codes. 1 person seems to have signed up twice in error. This brings the overall total down to 217.

[Andrew1011]

Thanks for clarifying thst Jenny.

[James Barber]

Hi Andrew1011,

The section of Melbourne Grove that has 15% etc. That 15% is a larger number than most East Dulwich residential roads total traffic volumes and yet residents on many of those roads want speed humps.

So I still think it has a speeding problem. But it isn't as bad as some other roads in the area and definitely across the borough. Hence why other locations in Southwark get a priority for central funds.

Hi Jenny1,

I'm keen for the new petition group to suggest the Terms of Reference they would like a study to follow as per our emails and previous posts on this thread. And well done getting so many petition signers - I know how much effort it takes.

[ed_pete]

Andrew1011 Wrote:

>

> Clearly the speed at which modern developments

> take place has escaped you.

The Charter East Dulwich will start with year 7 from September 2016 which means that they will not be a full capacity (years 7 - 11) until September 2020, five years hence. They have yet to say what the arrangements will be regarding the 6th form. If this is designed to take the year 11 pupils after their GCSE's then full capacity would not be reached until 2022. Hardly impending.

Harris Primary opened in September 2014 with children in reception year. Full capacity will not be reached until those children reach year 6 which again will not be until September 2020.

Undertaking any study now that attempts to predicate traffic flows and volumes once the schools are at full capacity is a waste of time and money.

[Jenny1]

Hi ed_pete

I had exactly the same thoughts on this subject initially. Why undertake a study now, when clearly within the next few years the situation will change radically?

Then it was pointed out to me that it would be good to establish base-line knowledge of the current situation to establish what is 'normal' at the moment and to tease out current problems to which there may well be relatively straightforward solutions.

Then in a few years time when things change we'll have a benchmark to act as a comparator to the 'new' situation.

[Andrew1011]

ed_pete Wrote:

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

> Andrew1011 Wrote:

> Undertaking any study now that attempts to

> predicate traffic flows and volumes once the

> schools are at full capacity is a waste of time

> and money.

I have consistantly said that a study take place at an appropriate time but I doubt we would ever agree on when that appropriate time was. Rightly or wrongly, I get the sense that you are aganst any study and, from your assertiona above, that you clearly don't grasp the value of - or the ncessessity for - statistical prediction in planning.

[Penguin68]

It is worth considering that if (following the full operation of schools and medical centres) the traffic levels rise, that may evidence actual need. The road is not some cul-de-sac or back-water, it links two A roads (as I have written too many times before). Living on roads which are link-routes as well as being residential (I live on Underhill, so I do know what I am talking about) can be irksome, but to deny their utility is frankly foolish.

We live in an inner suburb - it's a really nice and leafy inner suburb, but it's not an isolated village or peripheral urban area. Of course traffic should proceed carefully and at a suitable speed, and of course there may be some roads which are too narrow for some types of traffic (heavy lorries and artics) - but as soon as we start making roads impassible or exclusive we start to detract from the general amenity of living in ED.

[James Barber]

Hi P68,

I think you mean the amenity of driving not general amenity. The amenity of cleaner air for example can be damaged by the presumption of peoples right to drive along any and all streets.

[Jenny1]

Hi James

Thank you for your appreciation of our efforts.

You asked if we - as a group - would like to suggest Terms of Reference. We don't seek to go beyond the wording of our petition. Our main concern is that a process be undertaken that is led by traffic engineers, consults fully with all affected residents and does not start with any preconceptions. Hence the wording we asked people to sign up to.

I'm no expert on how such a thing would be carried out and I'm sure Southwark engineers could advise on the best approach. But it's not hard to imagine an information gathering exercise led by the highways department inviting input from concerned residents.

I would like to emphasise something which I said a while ago on this thread. I don't believe there's any great 'real' conflict in this situation. I would imagine we all sympathise fully with the aims of the Melbourne Traffic Action group in wishing to improve traffic conditions on Melbourne Grove. It just felt necessary to go through a process to confirm that this would be done in a way that was led by highway engineers, informed by the facts and which took into account the needs of all affected residents.

[Andrew1011]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi Andrew1011,

> So I still think it has a speeding problem. But it

> isn't as bad as some other roads in the area and

> definitely across the borough. Hence why other

> locations in Southwark get a priority for central

> funds.

Very clearly I didn't say it didn't have a speeding problem. I said I doubt it's any different for any other through road in the area. I also said that most people wouldn't want Melbourne Grove to become a precedent for others to call for their roads to be closed to traffic.

[ed_pete]

Jenny - we already have data from April this year and there will already be a follow up on speed monitoring in 2016 - the officers report states

"Officers are committed to undertaking further counts in 2016 as part of our post-implementation 20mph review programme."

Do we really need to spend money on another one ?

[Andrew1011]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi P68,

> I think you mean the amenity of driving not

> general amenity. The amenity of cleaner air for

> example can be damaged by the presumption of

> peoples right to drive along any and all streets.

Not if vehicles are changed to be low or no emission. However, they won't be able to access the roads closed off by anti-car zealots under the guise of keeping out the currently unclean ones.

[ed_pete]

In my view the the recommendations being put to the DCC are flawed:

1a - "The Dulwich Community Council (DCC) reverse its decision to allocate ?10,000 on a feasibility study for a permanent barrier."

The amount was estimated at between ?5 & ?10k. The barrier was not the only option to be considered.

1b ? ?DCC commission a traffic management study to include all roads in the Grove Vale/Lordship Lane, East Dulwich Grove, Townley Road Triangle.?

The objective of which would be what exactly ? Southwark already produce a Borough-wide Transport plan which they report on annually.

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/200107/transport_policy

3.1.b

?a barrier placement clearly constitutes a significant traffic management measure for which Southwark has an established process, including feasibility studies. Sponsoring Traffic Management Orders (TMO) with CGS funds may be regarded as an attempt to circumnavigate the rigour of the existing TMO process, particularly in light of the Officers Report. Piecemeal traffic schemes such as this will inevitably fall outside, and even work against, the overall traffic strategy for the area. ?

So how do you plan to fund your feasibility study if not using CGS funds ?

[Newton]

3.1.b already has the answer to your question in the first sentence: there's an established process, let's use it.

One of the major problems people have with the study is that it seems to be focussed on one problem in an area with multiple problems. For instance, as you know there's a bunch of (formerly Iceland, soon to be M&S) lorries thundering down Melbourne Grove. But they're coming from Chesterfield Grove, and there's nothing in this proposal that suggests this would do anything other than move those lorries off one small stretch of Melbourne. Whereas in fact the problem needs attacking where it starts in Chesterfield.

I'm _not_ saying there isn't a problem. Just that there's more than one problem. And if we're going to look part of it, we need to look at all of it.

[Jenny1]

Hi ed_pete

To answer your first point - that we already have speeding and volume data for Melbourne Grove and so do not need traffic studies regarding this road and surrounding ones. Personally, as a resident of Melbourne Grove, if asked a few weeks ago if we needed a traffic study into this area I'd have said 'no - I do not perceive problems here'. But because the Melbourne Traffic Action group gathered a lot of support for general traffic calming measures from residents of the road, and because in response to that people living on roads like Ashbourne and Chesterfield have raised their own concerns, then the best approach seems to be a joined-up, coherent look at the whole area suggesting options that are likely to give most benefit to all.

In your next post you say that you think that the council was already on course to carry out the kind of study we're asking for - in other words that a barrier on Melbourne Grove was not the only option being considered. I will simply say that after private communication with councillors and Southwark officers I did not feel fully reassured on that point.

You ask how a study would go any further than Southwark's existing borough-wide transport plan. Again I would say that I personally would have been quite happy to rely on that. But clearly there are residents on Melbourne Grove and roads that lead into it that have very real concerns about traffic. The objective of the study would be for those concerns to be put before traffic engineers who would then advise on what measures were/were not practicable to alleviate them (within their overall plan ofcourse).

You then raise the question as to how we plan to fund such a study if not via CGS funds. You will note that we are critical of the use of such funds for projects that do not meet the 'CGS' remit. We then go on to argue that the study we propose does meet the remit and could therefore be funded accordingly.

[Penguin68]

James Barber wrote: - The amenity of cleaner air for example can be damaged by the presumption of peoples right to drive along any and all streets.

Amusingly, it was the drive for diesel - promoted by the anti-carbon brigade and supported by the coalition government - which brought us the poor air quality associated with the diesel engine - modern petrol engines are, in fact, much less polluting (carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant - it is the necessary gas for the growth of plants, and is exhaled by all mammals). The major source of carbon dioxide (accounting for well over 70-80% in the atmosphere) is water vapour - but I suppose Mr Barber would like to see the back of that.

And the ability to travel freely and easily and quickly IS an amenity. And yes, I do I do 'presume' to drive along all and any street not otherwise forbidden - and indeed if Mr Barber is suggesting that there should be some form of ghetto for car drivers (of which he is one, as I recall) then I am quite worried for him.

[davidk]

Cycled through here last night (around 7pm) turning right to go down towards Lordship Lane. Apart from a nice, smooth new surface there doesn't really appear to be any provision for cyclists at the junction. Had a 4x4 up my trumpet so 'took the lane' until I was through the junction and then got buzzed and a lungful of exhaust fumes for my trouble. Thanks for nothing Southwark.

I hope they have at least improved the pedestrian experience otherwise what the hell was the point?

[ed_pete]

Hi Jenny1

The CGS remit is that "CGS funding projects should make Dulwich a better place to live and projects must make a permanent, physical improvement." I'm not so sure that funding a study in isolation where the outcome is a printed report really meets that criteria however others, including the Councillors, may beg to differ.

James (if you are reading this) - are you able to give examples of where the DCC has allocated funds for a feasilibilty study on the past or would this be setting a precident ?

[Jenny1]

Hi ed_pete. The aim would, of course, be for the printed report to contain suggestions that were practical and financially viable and would therefore be implemented.

[LondonMix]

I think the point is that the police use the 85th percentile as a standard measurement. From their stand point that is a cut-off measure for assessing traffic speeding. There is no reason to believe that speeding on Melborne Grove is higher than on any other road. This combined with the fact that there have not been significant accidents (based on the stats) suggests that there is not 'special problem or circumstance' that requires unusual measures like full width humps or blocking the road.

I've only just read this thread today as someone asked me to sign the petition.

I'm always impressed by how informed and active the local community is in assessing and where appropriate challenging policy proposals, particularly proposals that lack true support, fail to follow procedure or are based on assertions presented as fact but that have no objective basis.

The Harris Nunhead ED comes to mind as does the argument as do other recent such attempts by certain institutions and members of the community.

henryb Wrote:

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

> I don?t quite see how 15% of vehicles going 25%

> over the speed limit is not a significant amount

> of speeding. Regardless of the fact that the limit

> is 20mph not 25mph - would anyone use the

> argument that because only 15% of people were

> breaking the law it isn?t a problem, for any other

> type of illegal behaviour?

>

> Surely this is an issue for residents of Melbourne

> Grove ? not Black Cab drivers from Stanwell that

> the online petition is attracting.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Classic Lofts

[edhistory]

The legal sanction process for unlawful expenditure is now in primary legislation as Section 28 of the Localism Bill 2011 effective from 4 July 2012.

Very complicated stuff.

This is all you really need:

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/140/complaint_form-breach_of_the_member_code_of_conduct

[hopskip]

Jenny1 Wrote:

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

> Hi James

>

> Thank you for your appreciation of our efforts.

>

> You asked if we - as a group - would like to

> suggest Terms of Reference. We don't seek to go

> beyond the wording of our petition. Our main

> concern is that a process be undertaken that is

> led by traffic engineers, consults fully with all

> affected residents and does not start with any

> preconceptions. Hence the wording we asked people

> to sign up to.

>

> I'm no expert on how such a thing would be carried

> out and I'm sure Southwark engineers could advise

> on the best approach. But it's not hard to imagine

> an information gathering exercise led by the

> highways department inviting input from concerned

> residents.

>

> I would like to emphasise something which I said a

> while ago on this thread. I don't believe there's

> any great 'real' conflict in this situation. I

> would imagine we all sympathise fully with the

> aims of the Melbourne Traffic Action group in

> wishing to improve traffic conditions on Melbourne

> Grove. It just felt necessary to go through a

> process to confirm that this would be done in a

> way that was led by highway engineers, informed by

> the facts and which took into account the needs of

> all affected residents.

Good post, well said and seems to reflect the voice of many posting here who wish for something that supports the full range of issues. I hope that many of the Councillors read it, understand it and help create the springboard for it.

Good post....

[ed_pete]

One of my issues with the petition is that is doesn?t go into sufficient detail on what the issues are and what the study should address.

Having said that I don?t believe that CGS money is an appropriate means of funding traffic studies anyway and I'm even less keen on the outcome being funded from the CGS capital budget. The anti-barrier deputation criticises the original deputation for not making use of Traffic Management Orders and yet seeks to use CGS budget to fund their own studies outcome.