Closure of Melbourne Grove to through traffic - new petition

[Nicholas]

I haven't followed every thread on this. As ED has become so popular in the last few years, cool shops, great schools and now the new M&S, I'm afraid it goes with the territory. Closing off this road, in my opinion, will be disaster and make lordship lane a school run 24/7, traffic will be crazy. Possibly a one way. Best solution is permit parking, that would help.

[spider69]

Why not leave it as it is?

Has worked for many many years until the new imports arrived.

This is inner London.

[first mate]

Bels, thanks for the heads up about this online survey. I had no idea of its existence. I wonder how many other locals know about it?

[bels123]

.

[Bobby P]

spider69 Wrote:

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

> Why not leave it as it is?

> Has worked for many many years until the new

> imports arrived.

> This is inner London.

This exactly.

[bels123]

.

[first mate]

If any of you object then please make sure you fill out the online form, it is really short. However, do be aware that there is a biased, trip trap question that should be queried and that is about effectiveness of speed humps.

RCH, I really hope you are onto all of this and somehow involved.

[rch]

Hi first mate, good to see you again!

I was actually at the last Dulwich Community Council meeting where AECOM presented their initial review, previous to the current consultation. Afterwards I emailed the residents who promoted the anti-barrier petition (which got over 300 signatures in total) and they emailed the consultation url to all the signatories of the electronic petition, who had provided their email addresses.

I also pointed out the trick question about the speed humps, as well, so thanks for mentioning it here.

Although I was dubious at first, I actually thought the AECOM presentation was quite good (as usual, the DCC Chair tried to gag me when I complimented them).

They basically said that their recent survey yet again confirmed that there were no speeding or volume issues on Melbourne Grove, that the basic problem was lack of visibility at the junctions and the narrowness of the road from Chesterfield to EDG.

So, I suspect that the main recommendation is going to be to put in extended double yellow lines at all the junctions and maybe build outs to keep the traffic back and make pedestrian crossing easier at the jcts with Ashbourne and Chesterfield. Building out the corners of Chesterfield will help to control the number of lorries turning from Melbourne into Chesterfield as well.

This will probably create more parking problems, but it will actually solve the issues that people are complaining about, whereas speedhumps and a barrier won't make a blind bit of difference (except that a barrier will displace loads of local traffic).

Ironically, I recently witnessed another accident on the bend of Melbourne and Colwell just a couple weeks ago... as usual, it was caused by sheer bad driving by a local resident, not speeding or volume, despite what people claim.

I hate to say it, but I don't think there's much that can be done to stop local residents from driving like idiots...

[ed_pete]

What a waste of CGS money.

[anoTher]

rch Wrote:

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

> So, I suspect that the main recommendation is

> going to be to put in extended double yellow lines

> at all the junctions and maybe build outs to keep

> the traffic back and make pedestrian crossing

> easier at the jcts with Ashbourne and

> Chesterfield. Building out the corners of

> Chesterfield will help to control the number of

> lorries turning from Melbourne into Chesterfield

> as well.

>

> This will probably create more parking problems,

> but it will actually solve the issues that people

> are complaining about, whereas speedhumps and a

> barrier won't make a blind bit of difference

> (except that a barrier will displace loads of

> local traffic).

Of course it won't stop the speeding issues, are you mad. The existing speed cushions are as much use as a one legged man in an arse kicking competition.

> Ironically, I recently witnessed another accident

> on the bend of Melbourne and Colwell just a couple

> weeks ago... as usual, it was caused by sheer bad

> driving by a local resident, not speeding or

> volume, despite what people claim.

Not sure whats ironic about that, other than it supports the argument for MG traffic calming measures.

>

> I hate to say it, but I don't think there's much

> that can be done to stop local residents from

> driving like idiots...

Full width speed humps... DOH!

[bels123]

.

[James Barber]

The report was issued on Friday. It's 5.3M so can;t be attached here. IF any one would like me to email them a copy let me know.

[first mate]

James, what are the key conclusions? Can you provide a link to the report and put it in here?

[James Barber]

Hi first mate,

The report isn't on a website yet hence why I've not provided a link. It's also 5.3M.

Key conclusions are issues about sight lines and some crashes and very limited speeding. That two broad options suggested.

Option A sightlines - some double yellow lining of junctions with Melbourne Grove. Perhaps chop some mature trees down. kerb build outs.

Option B changing current speed cushions for full sinusoidal speed humps.

My initial thoughts are much of Option A should be implemented - but chopping down big mature trees OTT - and Option B. Total costs around ?32,000. This appears to have an excellent payback if it reduces the odd minor crashes apart from any innate calming of the area.

If someone can place the document on a website I'll happily email it to them.

[Abe_froeman]

Presumably there are going to be ten metres of double yellows at every junction soon anyway so why the need to spend 32,000 more?

[rch]

Well, since the Melbourne Grove Traffic Action Group also specifically requested more double yellow lines in their deputation for a barrier, I suspect that they'll be happy.

[rch]

I'm only about halfway through the 20-page report, but there are two recommendations which are alarming, partly because of the damage they'll cause without actually solving the problems:-

1) Cutting down the 100 year old original mature chestnut trees (which are actually older than the current pavement and road layout!) is insane. In the past, we have campaigned for build outs to be constructed around the two mature chestnuts down at the EDG end of Melbourne, which would allow prams and wheelchair users to circumvent the currently narrowed pavement while also acting as a calming feature at that junction of Melbourne.

The junction at the Lordship end of Melbourne is not at all obstructed by the mature chestnut there... what we have been campaigning for, for some time, is a zebra or other protected pedestrian crossing at the junction of Whateley and Lordship, because crossing over Lordship to the bus stop is a nightmare (the existing ped crossing is in the wrong place!).

Conversely, moving the bus stop down to the shopping parade so that it can be more easily accessed by the existing ped crossing would be more logical.

I actually had revenue funding granted for a bid I made a couple years ago for highway engineers to review this junction issue properly, but of course this never happened... I suspect that the funding has now been buried.

But this issue really needs to be looked into properly, as the operation of the school in this location will increase the road crossing problems... which cutting down trees won't address at all!

2) Upgrading the speed cushions to full width humps is a huge expenditure for minimal gain...

But what is most worrying is that no one seems to understand that Thames Water have installed three major underground flood pumps and reservoirs along the terrace between Colwell and Blackwater to protect the houses with basements on the ex-Section 24 sewer in this location, which could be badly affected by the vibrations of the speed humps... if these pumps fail, then the flood damage to the houses along here will be significant. It was actually because of the flooding issues that the speed cushion design and chosen locations in this section were implemented to begin with, but nobody in highways seems to be aware of this... it just seems that the left hand and the right hand don't communicate.

I've noted that no new humps are proposed for the corner of Melbourne and Colwell, which is where the most complex TW operation is implemented, but the speed cushion outside 137 Melbourne is exactly where the middle pump is located - you can see where the metal cover to the access chamber is cited in between two of the speed cushions.

Even if the hump in this location is offset in either direction, the vibrations will put the other two pumps at risk... this whole section is incredibly fragile.

So, if the other residents of Melbourne want to subject themselves to noise and vibrations for no actual traffic calming gain, then that's fine with me, but the section between Colwell and Blackwater really needs to be protected.

If highways really feel that traffic calming is needed in this section, then they should look at implementing a build out at the corner of Blackwater and Melbourne, where the sewer drainage layout is less complex.

[Earl Aelfheah]

This has the hallmarks of solution looking for a problem.

[ED_moots]

Heres the report on full (thank you James)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/04wcka9cby4w23h/C0277%20Melbourne%20Grove%20Safety%20Review%20Rev%20B.PDF?dl=0

Conclusions and recommendations copied verbatim:

9 Conclusions

9.1 The results of the collision analysis and traffic surveys revealed that there are currently no major

safety concerns along Melbourne Grove (South) with the exception of the Ashbourne Grove

junction where all three collisions at this location involved a motorcyclist being struck by a vehicle

emerging from the side road.

9.2 During the site visit a number of issues were identified mainly relating to obstructed visibility at

junctions along the route as a result of the lack of parking restrictions, and poor conditions for

pedestrians at specific locations. The effectiveness of the speed cushions was also questioned

following observations of vehicles straddling the cushions resulting in limited speed reduction.

9.3 It is likely that the two developments at either end of Melbourne Grove (South) which comprise a

secondary school and a primary school will lead to an increase in the number of pedestrians and

cyclists using Melbourne Grove (South) at school start and finish times. The new developments

are also likely to increase parking demand and traffic volume along Melbourne Grove (South).

9.4 The proposed extension of Bus Route No 42 is likely to have little impact on Melbourne Grove

(South) other than a potentially small increase in the number of pedestrians using the route to

access the bus stops on East Dulwich Grove.

9.5 Introduction of a new Controlled Parking Zone and associated parking restrictions in the area to

the northwest of Melbourne Grove (South) is also likely to have little impact on the southern

section of Melbourne Grove as the distance between these two sites is far enough that drivers are

unlikely to park in Melbourne Grove (South) in order to access parts of North Dulwich.

13 Recommendation

13.1 This safety review has concluded that Melbourne Grove (South) is comparable to other residential

streets in Southwark in terms of traffic speed, traffic flow and parking demand. It is recommended

that improving visibility at the junctions along the route should be prioritised to improve safety, and

improving footway conditions for pedestrians is also implemented. Southwark has already begun

a Borough-wide programme to install double yellow lines for a distance of 7m around every

junction and therefore Melbourne Grove (South) and its side roads will be treated as part of these

works. The cost of constructing all the above measures (Option A) is estimated to be ?19,700.

Given the sensitivities around removing trees, it is recommended that an arboricultural survey is

conducted of the trees identified in Plan 5, and dependent on the results of this survey, a decision

is then made on whether to remove them.

13.2 Although the speed surveys showed that the average speed of traffic along Melbourne Grove

(South) was not excessive, the replacement of the speed cushions with sinusoidal humps (Option

B) should be considered to target the minority of drivers who do exceed the speed limit by

straddling the speed cushions and compromising the safety of vulnerable road users. The

installation of humps may also discourage drivers from using the route as a rat-run.

13.3 The impact of the two new educational developments at either end of Melbourne Grove (South)

should be carefully considered and steps taken where possible to mitigate potential issues arising

from the opening of these sites which might affect the safety and environment of Melbourne

Grove (South).

I also noted that 1680 students and 180 staff are expected at the new Charter school with barely any parking provision on site.

Seems quite comprehensive (should be for 10 grand). Rch, I'm also apalled that chopping trees down is a possible recommendation. It would be a real shame if the result of MGTAG is more double yellows, full width humps and removal of trees.

A bit ironic if the allocation of CGS funding indirectly results in chopping trees down too.

[rch]

Don't even get me started about the issue of local government pissing away unnecessary funds in a time of extreme budget cuts. This is the THIRD survey on this non-existent issue that has been done in the past ten years.

The report clearly states that the average speed measurements are 19.5 mph and the 85th percentile average is 24.4 mph, which wouldn't even trigger the issuing of a speeding ticket.

I've been regularly volunteering for the speed monitoring projects in the area... vehicles on Barry Road are travelling up to between 30 and 39 mph in a 20 mph zone... everyone just laughs at the Melbourne Grove residents for whining about speed and congestion.

And I could think of a LOT better things to spend ?30,000 on...

[Penguin68]

Department of 'be careful what you wish for' ... A wonderful stately tree lined street will be reduced to a parking nightmare sterile tree-less hump-fest - with every good chance that the costly work by Thames Water will be negated and at least parts (probably all, knowing insurance companies) will become a costly to ensure flood risk once the equipment is believed to be failing. That'll push up property values no end... well done the gated community mavens.

Edited to add - OK, hyperbole I know - but, when you think of the things that do actually need doing locally, this is a huge waste of money, time, effort, resource and a generator of anguish well beyond its actually possible contribution to future well being. And when you think how long the Northcross Road build out took could make life generally unbearable for residents for some considerable time, on top of all the others works that have been going on.

[James Barber]

The report highlighted several issues that we need to fix.

The cutting down of three trees is mentioned but to me appeared framed as n unlikely solution and one of several ways to ensure better pavement access.

I think chopping them down would be disproportionate. I don't see this option happening.

But much of the other recommendations looked fine.

Under ground pumps. Speed humps are placed ever 50-80m (163-260 feet) Seems unlikely they couldn't be placed to avoid the three underground pumps mentioned if that option is chosen.

Irony is that if these speed humps had been installed when me and fellow East Dulwich ward councillors suggested them about 6 years ago this whole train of activities would likely have been avoided - but the then Village ward councillors - and this part of Melbourne Grove is the boundary between two wards - refused even if we solely used East Dulwich ward CGS funding.

[rch]

It's totally and utterly insane.

I'm still working my way through the report... am relieved to note that engineers do recommend build outs around the trees instead of cutting them down, but this will be more expensive.

There's also a note that TfL are concerned about increased congestion by increased users of the bus stop outside Harris, so moving the bus stop north to the parade, closer to the existing crossing could indeed make more sense, but that would be a different budget.

Recommendations also cite only upgrading some of the speed cushions to humps, so this could leave the specific cushions around the Thames Water project in the way they are now. In any case, I think there are legal issues if Southwark do works that will clearly cause damage to properties in the future, so the millions of pounds of flood damage could be payable by them. But I don't think that anyone wants to go through more damage and legal cases...

But the costed options for the tree build outs and partial sinusoidal humps is ?34,200... which I don't think even includes the junction narrowing works at Chesterfield, which would actually be beneficial.

[rch]

James, please try to understand how the vibration proximity of the full width speed humps could affect the Flip Pumps... the underground installation covers the entire section of this part of the road - it took over six months of the road being blocked off to implement and cost in the region of ?1million pounds of Flood Alleviation funding - so, if you insist on this, you will be promoting something that could possibly cause serious damage to eight residents' homes and therefore more disruption to this end of Melbourne Grove.

One of the reasons WHY the speed cushions were implemented in the specific manner along this section to begin with was precisely because of the logistical issues of the flooding in this section... this is part of the reason why the proposals 6 years ago were dropped and I suspect that the full width humps will almost certainly be advised against along here this time, once we go through all the trouble and explanations yet again.

Having to spend time going through this over and over and OVER is just so frustrating...

[rch]

One last comment and then I'll shut up for now...

When Melbourne Grove was resurfaced back in 2009 (?), another consultation was held to ascertain whether residents wanted full width humps or the existing speed cushions implemented in the resurfacing (which would have costed the council nothing as it was included in the resurfacing works).

But the majority of residents voted to keep the speed cushions as they are.

There was also an option proposed to narrow the junction entrance to Chesterfield Road (as is proposed in this current set of recommendations), but this was voted against as well.

This is how democracy works...

What I find sad about all of this is that it appears that the genuine problems caused by the narrowness of the road and the ongoing junction layout issues at Ashbourne and Chesterfield - which are causing actual accidents - are going to get undermined by tree murders and hump madness.