Closure of Melbourne Grove to through traffic - new petition

[d.b]

rch: if I remember rightly you live at the top of Melbourne Grove, is that right?

The problem with this solution is that you can't just close MG to through traffic, you will inevitably greatly disrupt many locals. And as you mention, schools are being built at either end, surely that's a reason to keep the road open to allow access from all sides, not to close it off?

LalKJ: not sure if this 15,000 number is truly so high, it doesn't "feel" high living just off MG and seeing traffic along the road on a daily basis, I just don't understand this issue being brought up. Traffic calming measures exist and I would be happy with bollards/better speed humps to reduce commercial traffic and speed.

Problem with this whole issue is that MG is not just a residential road, it is important for access to several other roads and there just isn't a justification to completely block off one entrance point to it.

[EDAus]

We live on Ashbourne Grove and will be directly impacted by any proposed changes - we only received a letter through our door at the beginning of this week (Monday or Tuesday from memory).

Prior to this letter we had never been asked to signed a petition or approached by any concerned residents.

James I look forward to seeing the pack developed by the residents of Melbourne Grove as we have growing number of questions.

[Penguin68]

Apparently the Police have expressed surprise that such a residential road would have such a huge volume of traffic - contrasts with Landcroft Road with 300 cars a day. So it's clear we have a serious rat run and the petition has a majority of residents on that road supporting the proposal.

I have already said (in this thread or another) that sat navs (including Tom Tom) use Melbourne Grove as a route for anyone trying to get from Dog Kennel Hill direction across to e.g. Forest Hill - so it's not surprising that it's being heavily used. As more and more people rely on sat nav, so they will use this route. Get the route removed from sat navs and the usage will plummet. That would be a far more sensible option than blocking the road off.

One final point the deputation made. Melbourne Grove had been closed result for many weeks while the junction was changed with East Dulwich Grove. traffic around the area still kept moving. People adjusted. This seems a pretty compelling real world example that it has worked when implemented temporarily.

I live in Underhill - we are all (having) to find alternative routes now that it's blocked (and will be) for weeks if not months, that does not mean that it will be OK to block it permanently in future, just because we are coping now. And that takes a lot more traffic than Melbourne (when it can).

We live in a pleasant community (see e.g. the Evening Standard) - the more we try to turn our little bits into exclusive 'stay-away from me you scum' gated communities (spits in corner) the more we won't be living in a community any more.

[XIX]

I agree with EDAus as a Chesterfield Grove resident. This was only raised with us this week, so it will be good to hear more on it as it develops.

James - do you have any response to my point above? LalKJ has warned against the spread of misinformation - this applies to the deputation as much as to any objectors. of course the deputation want this to happen, but it is important that this is played straight - they, you and any others should not be making false comparisons to make the case stronger.

[James Barber]

Hi d.b.,

Melbourne Grove is meant to be just a residential road.

Hi XIX,

Gosh you are in a rush.

What false comparisons have I made?

I'm not aware of lots of extra traffic via Tell Grove - it may be that residents there could see it was temporary or noticeable extra traffic didn't materialise I don't know. But the proposal IF the study shows it feasible would be to close the road between Tell grove and Ashbourne Grove.

We have a number of such closures - Friern Road, Gilkes Crescent that come to mind. I don't recall lots of people seeking them to be removed. People adapt. These streets returned to being properly residential. But we don't know the predicted traffic displacement so we're a long way from anything being more than just proposed as a request.

Hi ITATM,

Do you know how to get routes removed from SatNav's?

Hi EDAus,

Yes, you would be impacted which is why this campaign is now talking to other streets as I suggested they do. My hunch would be people aiming to use Lordship Lane that currently access via Melbourne Grove with intention to park on your road would have to act differently. This might reduce traffic.

residents on chesterfield would benefit from articulated lorries no longer being able to access their street via Melbourne Grove.

[intexasatthe moment]

James - it's probably Penguin68 you meant to ask about satnavs .

[intexasatthe moment]

d.b said "Problem with this whole issue is that MG is not just a residential road, it is important for access to several other roads"

JamesB replied "Hi d.b.,

Melbourne Grove is meant to be just a residential road"

???

do you mean it's meant to be a road without traffic ?

presumably " We have a number of such closures - Friern Road, Gilkes Crescent that come to mind. I don't recall lots of people seeking them to be removed. People adapt. These streets returned to being properly residential"

you do .

what on earth are you talking about ? Who meant these roads to be " properly residential " ? Should all our streets be " properly residential " ? Who will decide which become blocked off and which don't ?

[XIX]

No rush, just interested in your response!

The false comparison im referring to (the deputations, then repeated by you) is as follows. You stated:

"One final point the deputation made. Melbourne Grove had been closed result for many weeks while the junction was changed with East Dulwich Grove. traffic around the area still kept moving. People adjusted. This seems a pretty compelling real world example that it has worked when implemented temporarily."

My point was that I dont think this comparison is fair. Yes, Melbourne Grove was closed by the works (the similarity the deputation raises), but in that case the closure did not prevent people driving round Tell Grove and on to (or off) Melbourne Grove, which is a very quick and easy alternative. This would not be the case in this proposal where the barrier would be between Tell Grove and Ashbourne Grove (which would mean a much longer diversion), so the comparison is not valid.

That is my point!

[intexasatthe moment]

" We have a number of such closures - Friern Road, Gilkes Crescent that come to mind. I don't recall lots of people seeking them to be removed. People adapt. These streets returned to being properly residential."

actually I'd love to have these 2 reopened ,it drives me bonkers ( still after all the years since Gilkes was closed ) having routes abruptly terminated .

I've not adapted ,just seethed . And my seething will increase the more roads /streets this happens to .

People might tolerate one or two closures but I suspect they might start organising if it's going to become a common theme .

Particularly as Southwark seems to lack any co ordinating planning/strategy over such things .The impact of the Townley Rd plan on Calton Ave is an example .

[Jenny1]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi Jenny1,

> Apparently the Police have expressed surprise that

> such a residential road would have such a huge

> volume of traffic - contrasts with Landcroft Road

> with 300 cars a day. So it's clear we have a

> serious rat run and the petition has a majority of

> residents on that road supporting the proposal.

> Let all wait until we have a feasibility study and

> then talk about its methodology and understanding

> of options and forecast changes to our area.

Thank you for your response James.

I do not see Landcroft Road as being comparable with Melbourne Grove. It is much smaller - and hence much quieter.

I also do not see Melbourne Grove as a 'serious rat run'. I spend much of my day at home and am very much aware of what's happening on the road. I walk up and down Melbourne Grove at least twice daily at different times. I have never once thought - 'isn't the traffic awful here'. I can only conclude that the 300 cars a day using the road distribute themselves evenly and considerately throughout a 24 hour period. They've certainly never bothered me.

I accept that an effective campaign has been launched on the basis that there IS a problem. But I'm eager that the voices of residents on Melbourne Grove and surrounding roads who do NOT perceive there to be one - and who think blocking Melbourne Grove will create highly undesirable knock-on effects - are heard.

I am also saddened that in a time of austerity money is being spent on an issue which - surely - cannot be of the highest priority to the area.

[rch]

Just clarifying a couple of points in the interest of accuracy:-

1. The Traffic Survey from April 11-24, 2015, which measured the speeds on Melbourne Grove, was done by a consultant called Applied Traffic ( http://www.appliedtraffic.co.uk/ ) at the request of the MPS, but the survey wasn't done by MPS, am assuming that the funding came from them.

2. The total average speed measured in the two week exercise was 19mph Northbound and 18mph Southbound, which is under the 20mph Southwark limit. 85% of the traffic wasn't going any faster than 25mph, which is technically not high enough to issue a ticket. 15% of traffic was going at 26mph or higher, but highest speed is unspecified in the report. We've all seen and reported random examples of dangerous driving (I've actually witnessed speeding motorcycles mounting the pavement [!] to avoid police pursuits along here), but I'd like to speak to qualified traffic officers to ascertain how common this problem actually is.

3. FYI, putting a barrier across Melbourne in the section by Ashbourne won't stop Iceland lorries accessing Chesterfield, because the lorries access from the Lordship Lane end of Melbourne, which will remain accessible under the proposed gate (and will probably become the new displacement rat-run). The only thing that will stop lorries from accessing Chesterfield is to bring the corners closer together, which was consulted on in the last consultation and refused.

4. A raised junction scheme might be more expensive than a gate, but it will probably address the perceived problems once and for all, which will save us the cost of going through consultations over and over every five years. This is the third time in the past ten years (that I can remember) we have gone around this same issue... someone has incurred the cost of the Applied Traffic survey, along with officer time to advise cllrs and cabinet member, and now we will spend ?10K in council funds. So, would be good to at least cost up a raised junction scheme to consider as an option, even if it has to be phased.

5. The main reason why Townley/Calton etc was requested to be included on the Melbourne Barrier consultation is because this route is the ONLY OTHER alternative route linking Lordship and EDG, so a lot of the traffic would logically displace to that route which will also be affected by the dysfunctional new junction scheme... so comparing this consultation with the Townley junction consultation (which residents considered flawed in any case) is spurious... I also agree that comparing the recent Melbourne roadworks closure is spurious. Officers have always advised that it takes at least a year to accurately measure displacement, so any trial should last at least a year.

[Bobby P]

Cllr James B. coming out in favour doesn't surprise me, after his vocal support for a CPZ and stated anti-car predilection: but he graciously accepted defeat in the final popular vote on the CPZ, so perhaps history will repeat itself :)

As others have noted, James' comment about the temporary closure of Melbourne at the Grove Vale end is a straw man argument, since Tell Grove remained open and gave continued access to Grove Vale. Putting any proposed barrier between Tell and Ashbourne Groves would be a very different kettle of fish, so displacement would be different and I believe greater.

James in his comment says: "Clearly something needs to be done". It's this which I dispute the most: it is a pathology which more often than not leads to pointless wastes of money and unnecessary interference, and rarely to actually improving quality of life. And it's one which most politicians suffer from. I imagine, for instance, that there are roads all over London which COULD be turned into cul-de-sacs, and in a car-free utopia maybe London could be redesigned that way: but how anyone can rationally look at those police survey figures on either the density or the speed of traffic on Melbourne and find them exceptional or problematic is baffling. I look at the road I've lived on for years, and really can't see the "clear" problem, about which "something" must so definitively be done.

And, finally, on a separate issue, while I agree with comments not to get personal regarding the instigation of this petition, I would only say it is an odd thing - if one enjoys the tranquility of living in a cul-de-sac - to move house to a very different type of residential road and immediately attempt to change it into the type of road one just left. Odd. Again, I suppose, some things just need to be done...

[DadOf4]

using Google translate from Barberspeak to English:

"What we agree last night was to fund a study of the anticipated impacts of closing the road. Once we have that study we will decide how to proceed. Clearly something needs to be done which could range for closing a road to better traffic calming. But until the study is completed - I suspect they have all the data already for this study - we don't know whether a road closure will be thought practicable.

Lots of research to suggest some traffic evaporation would occur with a road closure - likely most would use Lordship Lane as an alternative. Some Townley."

Becomes

"I think this is a great idea and it fits perfectly with my political agenda. However, I will pretend to be balanced in my opinions so as not to upset any objectors who could vote for me. I will gently lobby in favour, but always maintaining that I am yet undecided. I will present lots of facts that support the case "for" and give anecdotal examples of others who are in favour based on "doorstep conversations" I've had. But, still I will say that I will only decide once this has been properly debated & consulted on. I will then vote in favour of the scheme, irrespective of any strong local feelings"

off he goes again

[richard tudor]

What is quite interesting when one reads these thoughts is you could equate the content to the script of the film Independence Day.

Residents went to bed one evening happy that their local area was a haven of peace and tranquility free from the stress of the modern world and next morning instead of a spacecraft cars had invaded their beloved haven of peace.

Traffic has existed before and been factored into ones daily living it did not suddenly appear.

This should have been thought of before one moved into the road.

.

I have been using MG both by car and on foot and have never considered it a problem road. LL is completely different and will only get worse.

How many houses/flats/residents are there in MG and how many of them, actual numbers have signed the petition.

Once again a well established road is being used to inflate and maintain house prices.

Cllr Barber says he supports the closure does that mean those against will not get the same support?

[Penguin68]

James - it's probably Penguin68 you meant to ask about satnavs .

If it was, then I can report I have no idea - the equipment uses algorithms which match start and destination with inbuilt maps and look (generally, in towns) for the straightest route - which normally implies shortest/ quickest. It takes a long time, in my experience, for changes in roads (i.e. being closed, being made one-way) to get into sat navs, and of course those who don't pay to update their maps won't ever get those changes. My reference was simply to explain why that route is used by 'passers through'. Actually, even if the road was blocked, they would still try to use it (knowing no better) and there would likely be worse problems than before.

It's actually a very useful route when (as frequently seemed to happen) the route through the Goose Green roundabout was blocked by accident or road works. The more alternative routes around the borough are blocked by the actions of the anti-car brigade and selfish residents, the more problems, when they do occur, will be hugely exacerbated.

[James Barber]

HI Jenny1,

Melbourne Grove has over 2,000 vehicles on average per day. Landcroft Road has 300.

The difference is the rat-running or their abouts. The average and 85th percentile speeds compared between the two appear to bare this out.

You are perfectly at liberty to run a counter campaign against closing Melbourne Grove. If you need any advice how to do that let me know. I want the best possible decision based on residents and evidence of anticipated traffic impacts.

Hi Penguin68,

Argh. You raised my hopes. I have had a local set of houses added to SatNavs at residents requests and that involved working with Ordnance Survey etc. Enjoyable unusual if long extended casework. But OS I doubt would remove known roads/routes.

Hi ITATM,

Then I'm afraid we'll have to disagree. Managing the road network for me is balancing competing demands. One set of demands is mobility another is ensuring people have pleasant places to live. When a street is experiencing close to 10x the anticipated traffic volumes with excessive speeding then the balance needs to be shifted.

Hi Robin,

The Police paid for that traffic survey I believe.

I can't see a new rat-run forming Melbourne Grove - Ashbourne Grove to reach East Dulwich Grove if the closure happened. if you want to get to west along East Dulwich Grove you'd already be going via Townley Road. The rat-running I would conjecture is people going to/from Camberwell who would divert onto Lordship Lane which despite having much higher traffic volumes I suspect could absorb this.

And you know the CGS budget could never afford 2 of more raised treatments. So not sure why you'd suggest something you know we could never afford?

Hi Bobby P,

We've been told the Police have stated that Melbourne Grove has far more traffic and speeding traffic than they think right for a residential street. The Police data supports this statement. so yes I stick with something needs to be done,. Originally unimaginatively I assumed full speed humps. Cllr Charlie Smith proposed to the residents that closing the road would be better solution and I suspect he's right.

BUT it would take the agreement of all the directly affected residents who live on Melbourne Grove and adjoining streets AND a study suggestions the overall impacts make are worth it. These are big hurdles for the campaign and I wish them success convincing us all.

Hi Dadof4,

Entertaining and wrong.

Hi Richard tudor,

I have not said I support the closure. I have said a study will need to be produced and a majority in the area supporting it. The closure appeals to me as it would solve the problem once for all and would be affordable.

[richard tudor]

IF and it's a very big if residents wanted this after the study has been published and we had decided to consult on that as an option I would support a road closure. It would make many local streets fully residential again. If not then as a minimum I'd look for full width road humps to try some level of traffic calming.

Have I misunderstood?

[Jenny1]

Hi James

If there really are 2,000 vehicles a day using Melbourne Grove (and I assume there must be if that's what the recent survey shows) then my previous statement still stands. I do not - as a resident of the road of 17 years - find them troublesome. The vast majority must be driven by exceptionally careful and considerate drivers for me to remain virtually unaware of them!

I am curious as to why you are using Landcroft Road as a benchmark to state that there are excessive levels of traffic on Melbourne Grove - much of which you say is travelling too fast. Why is it considered that Melbourne Grove's traffic volume and speeds should be the same as those of Landcroft Road? I regard the character and size of the roads to be different.

And actually I would dispute the fact that there really IS 'excessive speeding' on Melbourne Grove. That's not how I interpret the recent available information. As has been stated above by rch the survey showed that the average speed of vehicles on the road was 19 mph. Surely not 'excessive' in anyone's book.

I spend a lot of time walking up and down Melbourne Grove and do not myself own a car. I would love to see less car use in London but do not regard blocking roads as a great way of achieving that.

You state that it would take the agreement of ALL the affected residents of Melbourne Grove and adjoining streets to approve the blocking of the road. If that's correct then no counter campaign will be needed against this proposal.

[intexasatthe moment]

Given that people who live there are saying that the road doesn't seem busy are we quite sure that the following is correct ?

" The Police conducted a traffic survey over a two week period. It found 15,000 vehicles a week using the lower southern section of Melbourne Grove (East Dulwich Grove to Lordship Lane) or just over 2,000 vehicles per day on average."

No confusion with the northern end ?

I've no idea what would be considered normal or high . Clearly such info will become important if we've got residents wanting their streets closed and councillors who are attempting to balance " mobility " against pleasant places to live . I wonder what that measure is ?

What were the vehicle numbers that justified the closure of Friern Rd ? A much busier route I imagine ( and obviously the traffic didn't evaporate but shifted elsewhere to torment others ) but would be interesting to know this or any other streets that might be comparable . Presumably the figures are available ,otherwise the police wouldn't have been surprised .

[d.b]

"Melbourne Grove is meant to be just a residential road"

Not sure whether there is some technical definition you are using here but your comparison with Landcroft is completely (deliberately?) misleading. Landcroft has no junction with any major road and seems an unlikely route to any neighbouring road. Melbourne Grove has three junctions with major/busy roads and is an important local connecting route (different from a rat run). The idea of funneling all local traffic down the clogged LL bus routes and GG roundabout is terrible. A run to Sainsburys from the bottom end of MG could easily end up taking 10+ minutes more at busy times, as well as contributing to more traffic jams and associated problems on LL itself.

What's surprising to me is that, other than main cheerleader LalKJ, I don't see anyone at all on this thread who reports experience of traffic being a problem on MG. Nor do many of them seem to have received any notification of consultation (I didn't).

n.b. also checked http://www.crashmap.co.uk/ there is basically no history of any accidents on MG going back ~10 years.

This whole issue seems rather contrived, a fix for a problem that doesn't exist.

[rch]

Hi James... if you really want to improve the whole road's quality of life, then consult on putting two barriers in at either main junction so that the whole road benefits.

As for raised junctions, I'd love to see a current estimate, as previous estimates for one junction were about the same cost as removing the cushions and instating full width humps. The works would have to be phased if the full amount couldn't be allocated, but it's better than going through this same discussion every five years.

What we really need is access to a highways engineer!

[Otto]

James Barber -

Just to clarify - there was quite a bit of increased traffic on Tell Grove when Melbourne Grove had works. It seemed ridiculous to complain as it was temporary and there were improvements being made!

[traveler2]

We live on one of the streets off Melbourne Grove. On weekends in particular, we see a lot of traffic cutting from Lordship Lane to MG to access ED Grove and its plainly dangerous for residents of all ages. With two new schools coming in, the traffic will only get worse. We welcome a traffic calming solution which will benefit local residents.

[Bobby P]

Traffic calming is not the same as traffic blocking. Many might support the former, not so many the latter.

[sedm]

Huge understanding for residents in the road.

However, surely the fact that there is a high volume of traffic means residents in East Dulwich (including me) find Melbourne Grove vital?

People who speed are clearly a problem & very selfish - but would be very sorry to see the majority punished for the actions of minority.

As a driver I'm also starting to feel the Council isn't on my side more generally...