Closure of Melbourne Grove to through traffic - new petition

[Burbage]

"Southwark has already begun a Borough-wide programme to install double yellow lines for a distance of 7m around every

junction", says Conway/AECOM.

So, first we were told 10m, then 7.5m and now it's allegedly down to 7m.

Is this:

a) a very modest victory for common sense

b) a typographical blunder

c) proof that none of Conway/AECOM's numbers can be trusted

d) evidence of a vested business interest undermining democratic oversight

[Charlie Smith]

I have been sending out the report to local residents to pass on. I have also spoken to a couple of local residents this morning and have been listening to local knowledge. I am going to walk the street with Robin, probably next week with the report. I don't want to see trees felled and would probably support the build out idea. I agree that sight lines at the junctions will need to be improved. It is important that local Councillors get our heads together on this report. We should also keep local residents updated on which option will be chosen.

Regards

Councillor Charlie Smith

East Dulwich Ward Member

[Earl Aelfheah]

rch Wrote:

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

> 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...

^this

[Earl Aelfheah]

So no real problem with speeding, but let's put full width speed bumps in?!

[rch]

Yep, that's basically the deal.

Firstly, if you go with Option B you wouldn't be addressing the actual problems, which Option A addresses.

Secondly, you would create problems with emergency vehicles as they wouldn't be able to use Melbourne at all now thereby having to skirt all the way around... in fact, I think the police and fire dept objected to the full width proposal the first two times.

Thirdly, you would obstruct the bus diversion route... now that there are full width humps on the northern end of Melbourne, the 37 diverts down the southern end in an emergency (and presumably the 42 when it gets extended).

Even if we compromised and cut out the upgrade on the set of cushions in the middle of the flood works section (as above), thereby reducing the hump upgrade from 7 humps to 6 humps, costing just under ?10K, you would still be spending ?10K of public money on a perceived problem that technically doesn't exist, but would then not be addressing some of the real safety issues which Option A addresses.

[Earl Aelfheah]

A sensible approach to local traffic management / resource allocation would say: "Let's identify accident black spots and those areas with the highest incidence of speeding and prioritise investment accordingly to ensure the most impact / benefit."

The policy we have seems to be: "Let's see which street lobbies the hardest / makes the most noise. Then let's spend money on a report that fails to identify a serious or urgent case for investment..... but then, because the report does (as with any detailed study of any street) identify possible areas for improvement, let?s prioritise spending on addressing these issues.?

What is going on?

[Cora]

Only option B mentions humps, so go with option A, tweaking it to avoid tree felling? The double yellow lines and build out, especially on Chesterfield road make complete sense to me to make it safer for pedestrians.

[Earl Aelfheah]

But why is this a priority for investment? Yes, there are improvements which could be made. Commission a detailed review of any street and it will identify possible improvements? But this is just a perverse way of prioritizing road changes and allocating resources.

[Abe_froeman]

I wonder whether the people that started all of this even actually still live in Melbourne Grove. The Melbourne Grove Traffic Action Group seems to have completely disappeared.

[James Barber]

Southwark Council has now provided the document online at:

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/13539/melbourne_grove_south_safety_review_and_feasibility_study_report

[Earl Aelfheah]

"The results from the speed surveys would indicate that the design of the speed cushions is sufficient in slowing the majority of vehicles down although the low speeds could also be attributed to the need to stop to giveway to oncoming traffic where the carriageway width is reduced as a result of parked vehicles on both sides of the road (See Section 5.2 Traffic Surveys). Site observations confirm that the majority of vehicles travelling along the route have to stop at least once to give-way to oncoming traffic during peak times. "

The report finds no evidence of a particular problem with speeding on MG. It also points out that the fact vehicles have to stop in order to let each other pass is effective at slowing people down. Yet, it goes on to suggests full width speed bumps are installed (presumably by Conway who wrote the report?). Under what circumstances would speed bumps not be considered necessary exactly? This whole thing is a total misallocation of resources driven by self interest and knee-jerk politics.

[Penguin68]

This is clearly a comprehensive report written by a consultancy that hopes and expects that any work recommended will be offered (as it always is) to their construction arm. Even then they confirm that traffic levels are lower and slower than might have been expected (contrary to the earlier claims by those who initiated all the fuss) and only make the case for full width road humps on the basis that this will stop motor-cyclists speeding (as they can drive through what exists) - which will presumably help reduce the accidents suffered by - oh yes motor-cyclists. I am sure that the road (like almost every other road in the borough) can be 'improved' in some way by extra work being undertaken (by Conway's, of course) - but I see many others (such as Barry) with a far greater claim to being actual accident black-spots plagued by real speeding over the 20mph limit. Given the limited resources of the borough, the survey itself was a waste of money - any work triggered by it will be a scandalous waste of money.

[James Barber]

Hi rahrahrah,

which street do you live on? Is it Melbourne Grove so you;d rather not have this suggested investment where you live or do you live on a road with worse traffic issues you think should be a higher priority, or do you live on a road you think perfectly fine and without a traffic problem but would rather people living on a street where they think a problem not be improved?

What's your angle?

85th percentile drive at 24 mph or less. Which means the remaining 15th percentile drive at speeds higher than 24mph in a 20mph area.

Traffic consultants perhaps don't think that's particular speeding but many residents who live there do and some don't.

I think we can agree on changes that will make it easier to walk and cross the roads, without chopping mature trees down, make the road easier to read and reduce speeding so even fewer speed along there.

To me that isn't self interest or gesture politics.

Hi Abe_foreman,

No, they still exist but I suspect they just don't like being flamed on the forum for having their own opinions.

[first mate]

James, no traffic feasibility study will give a true picture of pressures on this area until all the new schools and M&S are up and running, but you probably know that, hence the haste to drive this through now.

When will those roads adjacent to MG get an info pack and get their say?

[Earl Aelfheah]

@James Barber...My Angle? As stated, I want a considered, strategic approach to allocating resources and prioritising investment. I would like to see those streets were speeding is a problem or where accident rates are high targeted for action. Not the street where a small number of residents make the most noise.

[Abe_froeman]

Apart from the ten thousand pounds already spent and the thirty odd thousand pounds still to be spent. I wonder how families stuck in temporary accomodation waiting on Southwark's housing list feel about the cleaner safer greener impact of this scheme.

[rch]

Just to let you all know that it looks like the Melbourne Grove feasibility study is going to be discussed at the Dulwich Community Council meeting tonight, starting at 7pm at Christ Church, Barry Road.

The agenda is pretty vague... it looks like the Melbourne Grove Traffic Action group is making a presentation at the beginning of the meeting, although it's not clear if there will actually be a genuinely open discussion with engineers, etc.

As I'm normally discouraged from speaking, some of you might want to come along and speak out so that councillors don't assume that the Traffic Action group represents the views of all the residents in the road.

Sorry about the last minute notice, I'm really beginning to get fed up with the dysfunctional democratic process... the good news is that the new cabinet member, who I've had good experiences with in the past, will be attending.

p.s. The Quietways proposal is also going to be discussed tonight, but it appears that this is actually being done as a formal agenda item.

[heartblock]

More traffic pushed onto East Dulwich Grove isn't ideal, is there anything in the proposal that will stop this from happening if Melbourne Grove is closed to traffic.

[lauram]

Did anyone attend the meeting?

We were away, but I did email my comments.

Would be interested to find out any decisions.

Thanks

[anoTher]

Motorcyclists aren't the problem penguin68 - Anyone living on MG can tell you that some cars and vans will happily speed over the existing cushions very much faster than the 85th percentile quoted figures in the survey with very little deflection to their suspension, particularly larger vehicles - I know I live here and drive down the road, 40MPH + is easily possible.

The survey fails to point out that it is this minority of drivers the residents are concerned about since it seems overly focussed on average 85th percentile speeds.

MG is a 'rat run' and I cannot understand why there are 28 pages of vitriol against residents wanting full width speed humps, which definitely slow vehicles down. At the end of the day its a bit of raised tarmac - how hard can that be for folks to put up with.

Can someone please change the name of this thread because the 'Closure of Melbourne Grove to though traffic' option was discussed for approximately 2 seconds and discounted by everyone including MGTA!

On second thoughts - I really wouldn't want to spoil your fun though.

[KalamityKel]

Received from Cllr Barber yesterday:

Dear Resident,

Just a quick email to ensure you?re aware of the decision local councillors took with regard to Melbourne Grove (south) proposed changes.

At the 22 June Dulwich Community Council after hearing evidence, reviewing the consultant report we decided that we would fund the proposed changes.

The proposed changes being changing the current speed humps to full width sinusoidal humps - we asked that where residents have basements under the pavement that this not occur which is predominantly the very southern part of Melbourne Grove. Some limited double yellow lines around the junction of Ashbourne Grove with Melbourne Grove as this appear a location for crashes. That we keep our mature trees and build the kerb out to allow people walking to get round them with buggies etc.

The changes will cost ?32,000 which will be jointly funded by both East Dulwich ward (eastern side of the street) and Village ward (western side of the street) from our Cleaner, Greener, Safer devolved funding. The slight complication is Village ward don?t have any budget left so East Dulwich is likely to lend the required funding until the next batch of funding is devolved April 2017. The alternative would be a 10 month delay to proceeding.

if you have any questions lease don?t hesitate to call or email me.

Regards james barber

Liberal Democrat Councillor for East Dulwich ward

07900 227366

www.jamesbarber.org.uk

@cllrjamesbarber

[heartblock]

Maybe to make the exercise a bit cheaper you could dig up the speed humps on East Dulwich Grove - that don't actually slow the traffic, but just cause more noise as skip lorrys and vans speed over them.....and move them to Melbourne Grove instead - they are welcome to them.

[ed_pete]

There must be better things to spend ?42,000 YES ?42,000 on. (?32k + ?10k for study)

[Earl Aelfheah]

Unbelievable approach to planning and prioiritsing resources.

[Abe_froeman]

The ?32,000 quoted for the work described in that email does seem out of kilter with the original costs set out in Conway's feasibility study.

I hope that the residents of Melbourne Grove will be satisfied with this and, once the works and disruption are complete, will feel this is money well spent.