Closure of Melbourne Grove to through traffic - new petition

[intexasatthe moment]

Sorry but I think the terms used to denote different types of road should be amended .

I don't doubt that principal and residential are terms of classification rather than description . Handy though that this terminology allows us to forget about real human beings actually residing on main roads .

[Siduhe]

I wonder if part of the issue with cars that speed is the narrowness of the road (the ED Grove to LLane section). I occasionally use this route and, because of the narrow road and the number of cars parked up on both sides, cars can't pass in both directions in places and there are few passing spaces for oncoming traffic. I can see the temptation, if the road is clear, to move through this section pretty sharpish - with the aim of avoiding getting blocked by oncoming traffic (although I don't think I've ever managed to get over 20 going down there).

Would be interested to know where the speeding is taking place - and if it is the first bit off ED Grove towards LLane, would a solution be to remove some parking to create a couple of passing places for traffic?

[Hawaii86]

I live on Melbourne Grove and would support a barrier or whatever is feasible to deal with the volume of traffic and excessive speeds. I use lordship lane instead of MG as I've had so many horrible experiences of near misses as drivers using it as a ratrun are impatient to nip through the traffic and don't want to wait while a resident parks or puts their kids in the car.

I've been beeped at and sworn at while strapping my 3 year old in to her car seat. The road isn't wide enough for two cars to pass easily at all points so most drivers speed, brake and speed again between passing points. This means it is difficult to accurately record the actual impact of speeding. Average speeds are reduced by drivers coming to a standstill near junctions and to let other cars through.

Only yesterday I was called a 'stupid bitch' for driving at 20mph and waiting for a cyclist to pass before turning into blackwater.

Delivery drivers have nearly knocked my eight year old down as they've come round the bend near colwell so fast that they haven't been able to brake quickly enough. The 20mph limit is not being adhered to and that's simply not safe for the many kids who walk to school along the road.

A number of my neighbours have had their cars scraped and wing mirrors knocked off. One four times recently. All these references to new residents making complaints are misleading. There are residents who've lived on the street for decades who want something done.

15000 vehicles a week is an awful lot of traffic for a road that can't take two cars passing each other at every point. Of course drivers will speed up to get to a passing point. When multiple van and HGV drivers do this too it creates a very unsafe situation.

Regarding the comment on a lack of supportive voices on the forum, not everyone uses this forum because discussions can quickly become polarised and comments can get quite personal. The campaign has attempted to contact every resident of MG directly and found huge support for the feasibility study. Contacting all MG residents to ask for their views seems like a reasonable place to start. Obviously a formal wider consultation would take place before any action was taken.

[intexasatthe moment]

Sidhue from this earlier post

rch Yesterday, 03:41PM

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 ( [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.

It looks as though there is some speeding but I would question whether the reported levels constitute a real problem .

[intexasatthe moment]

Hawaii86 - those are horrible experiences and it's particularly upsetting where verbal abuse and children are involved .

But such experiences are not unique to Melbourne Grove . The majority of roads around here are not wide enough to allow two vehicles to pass and those that are wide enough are subject to speeding - especially if they are straight .

It's also not at all unusual to have wing mirrors knocked off and cars scraped .

If these are valid reasons for having a road blocked off where will it end ? How many roads will become culdesacs ? Who and how will it be decided which roads should have feasibilty studies carried out ? What will the criteria be for having a road closed ? How will priority be decided if more roads meet the criteria than there are funds to spend ?

[rch]

I agree with intexas. FYI, my house is bent around the bend near Colwell and it's really not bad along here (where the road is quite wide).

But I do accept that the narrowness of the road from Ashbourne to Chesterfield is a problem for drivers, where cars have problems passing, as well as the immediate residents. However, this problem can be addressed in a far better way than creating a bigger problem throughout a community.

[jangle]

People clearly hold strong and differing opinions about whether a problem really exists and if so what interventions would be optimal from a cost benefit perspective.

Surely conducting a feasibility study is a sensible step which will identify more clearly the nature of the current traffic patterns and the impact of any barrier. The feasibility study alone wouldn't decide anything, a public consultation would be needed and that's when everyone potentially affected would be free to have their say.

Personally I'm in favour but welcome a proper process to establish the best approach that is supported by the majority of affected roads.

And finally, it's a real shame when healthy debate turns nasty and gets personal, it's not helpful.

[wulfhound]

This number also sheds a bit of light on the volume of traffic using the road... if there are, say, 200 car owners on Melbourne coming and going every day, to say nothing of the immediate side streets feeding into it, you can quite quickly get up to 1000 journeys a day between going to and from work, school runs, shopping, after school activities within a thriving community.

5 journeys per car per day? That sounds way excessive. The majority of people don't drive to work, a lot of residents' cars - perhaps the majority? - are sat idle 4-5 days out of 7 & mostly get used for shopping and weekend trips.

[richard tudor]

rch Wrote:

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

> Hang on, I think we need to do a factual accuracy

> check again... I'm not entirely convinced that the

> petition for the barrier actually constitutes a

> clear majority of residents.

>

> In the deputation, they stated that they had 128

> signatures which they claimed represented the

> majority of registered voters on the relevant

> section of Melbourne Grove. So, as an ex cllr, I

> got out an old electoral reg and counted approx

> 126 voters on the Village ward side alone (i.e.

> the west side), which is only HALF of the relevant

> part of Melbourne Grove - the other side being in

> East Dulwich ward (the east side).

>

> I don't think people realise that Melbourne is

> actually the boundary between two wards... so, if

> the Vil ward side has 126 voters, would the ED

> side have roughly the same amount? This would mean

> that the total number of registered voters on the

> relevant section of the whole road is closer to

> 250, which then casts doubt over the claim that

> the petition represents a clear majority.

>

> This number also sheds a bit of light on the

> volume of traffic using the road... if there are,

> say, 200 car owners on Melbourne coming and going

> every day, to say nothing of the immediate side

> streets feeding into it, you can quite quickly get

> up to 1000 journeys a day between going to and

> from work, school runs, shopping, after school

> activities within a thriving community.

>

> As intexas says, the volume of traffic is

> increasing everywhere... and especially in the

> Dulwich area as the public transport is so bad.

>

> So, it would be nice to know what the actual

> number of residents on the relevant section of

> Melbourne is... and how many drive cars (although

> those of us who don't drive also get a vote!)

>

> Having said that, I don't think these figures will

> change the concerning displacement issue of a

> barrier. It just puts some of the stats being

> kicked around into perspective.

Thank you for the above. Surprised that the local Cllrs did bring it out into the open. But then they support the closure. Level playing field?

[James Barber]

On the information I have I support in principle the closure BUT I've yet to see the predicted impacts by traffic engineers. I'm not a traffic engineer so my gut feeling of support could easily be wrong. Equally if the feasibility said it thinks it would work but residents are mostly against it then I wouldn't support it. I suspect I might give a little more weight to people directly affected by the downside of such volumes of traffic which we've established 15% speeding greater than 26mph on 20mph road.

What I'm most keen to have explained is impact on northern section of Melbourne Grove which has much higher traffic levels. Lordship Lane and whether it could absorb extra traffic. Ashbourne and Chesterfield Groves - will traffic go up or down. We organised speed bumps on those roads due to speeding complaints from residents so interested how that might change with this proposal.

I've checked voter records and I think they've as clear majority in support and we met 20 adults and 3 kids from Melbourne Grove on Wednesday evening - which for a deputation is a great turn out at such an early stage of a campaign.

[DominickHide]

There is no way the amount of cars the survey says travels along MG daily can possibly be true. I know! I am of the opinion that there is no need for any traffic calming measures at all other than the ones that already exist. I would happily join any group that fights these ridiculous aims. I think it is completley relevant that the ringleader of the group wanting all of this is a very new resident.

The amount of money being wasted on a pointless feasability study is outrageous. Politicians trying to curry favour and forcing their anti car stance. There is absolutely no need for any of this.

[Loz]

15000 cars/week sounds a lot, but...

That's 1.5 cars per minute, on average. Let's say that peak is 5x average, that 7.5 cars/minute at peak. If that peak last 4 hours (2 in the morning and 2 in the evening) then that reduces the non-peak average to 0.28 cars per minute or one car every 3.5 minutes.

[Hawaii86]

There isn't a 'ringleader'. It's a group of residents. This sort of insistence of creating an individual to target is why some avoid this forum.

I don't know what to say about people's rejections of actual police data. So I'll make any future contributions to a formal consultation process rather than this thread.

[intexasatthe moment]

ooh show us your workings Loz ,how many hours/minutes a day did you assume ?

[wulfhound]

More traffic count data is here, Dominick:

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/3056/transport_data

A few years out of date, but it's likely not changed that much since. 15000/week sounds plausible in the context of 2000/day measured in 2009-2010.

If these are valid reasons for having a road blocked off where will it end ? How many roads will become culdesacs ?

The logical conclusion is - all of them except essential main roads. They've done this in other neighbourhoods (Van Gogh Walk, De Beauvoir Town, some parts of Peckham, Trinity Square in Borough) and most newer housing estates are pretty much built that way. It doesn't make any sense to design high-density residential streets to also function as traffic systems, which is why such things are not built. The challenge is how best to retro-fit that on to a street grid which pre-dates mass motoring by half a century or more.

[Loz]

intexasatthe moment Wrote:

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

> ooh show us your workings Loz ,how many hours/minutes a day did you assume ?

It's all there, really. 15000/7/24/60 = 1.5 cars per min (or 2142 per day).

Peak assumption of 5x (or 7.5 cars) for four hours gives 1800 cars during that period, so that leaves 2142-1800=342 cars using the road outside peak, so that's 342/20/60=0.285 per minute, which is one every 3.5 minutes.

That's quite a rough calculation and could be fine tuned, but the basic point I was making is 15000 cars a week sounds a lot, but if you say an average of 7.5 cars a minute peak and a car every 3.5 minutes off peak, it doesn't sound quite so scary, really.

[intexasatthe moment]

" The logical conclusion is - all of them except essential main roads. They've done this in other neighbourhoods "

but having some pedestrianised estates in Hackney/Islington and Peckham and a square in Borough is hardly the same thing as closing all roads apart from main ones .

" The challenge is how best to retro-fit that on to a street grid which pre-dates mass motoring by half a century or more."

Where will the funding come from to meet that challenge ?

[rch]

The point I'm repeatedly making is that I'm NOT rejecting the police data, I'm actually accurately quoting the report commissioned by the police, that I have a copy of.

This is exactly what happened when we went through this same investigation exercise five years ago... the police got so concerned about the way that the residents were misinterpreting the data that they offered me training with a traffic officer so that I could understand the stats and how they applied to the situation without being diverted by disinformation.

I've tried twice to explain this to the person who knocked at my door, but he just gets upset with me because I don't agree that there's a speeding problem according to the police report (which has matched all the other reports over the past ten years), as well as my own personal experience.

In the meantime, Southwark's administration has made a public statement about this matter in the Southwark News, noting the 20mph average speeds in the report, so I'm not making this up:-

http://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/dulwich-residents-living-in-rat-run-appeal-to-council-for-help/

'Cllr Darren Merrill, cabinet member for environment and public realm, said: ?I?m aware that the residents don?t think the traffic calming goes far enough, but as we are recording average speeds of around 20 mph this wouldn?t be a road that meets our criteria for priority investment to upgrade the cushions that are already there. But I would advise residents to apply for the next round of Cleaner, Greener, Safer funding which would help fund smaller scale schemes in the area.?'

I'm actually agreeing with Darren Merrill... because the perceived speeding issue isn't technically a problem that can be resolved, I'm suggesting using CGS funding to address the narrow road issues that residents in one section of Melbourne Grove are experiencing in a way that won't have a knock-on effect on other residents' quality of life.

[intexasatthe moment]

Thanks rch for posting and giving the link to the SLP .

It seems odd that when Darren Merrill is stating so clearly that "as we are recording average speeds of around 20 mph this wouldn?t be a road that meets our criteria for priority investment to upgrade the cushions that are already there" that the DCC recommended a costly feasibilty study .

I guess any group wanting to submit bids for a project to be funded under Cleaner ,Greener,Safer funding would also be granted thousands of pounds to carry out pre bid studies ?

[richard tudor]

To get it you must quote the relevant middleclass buzz words and how extreme and worrying the area has become in safety terms

The whole thing is a joke.

[Newton]

If I recall correctly, when Ashbourne Grove residents were petitioning for a barrier, the average car speed was 25 miles an hour and the road was getting completely torn up, there was no study even proposed and the council provided no support. Instead they were told that access was vital for emergency services.

And now I get to find out that someone's saying they've "contacted me" 4 or 5 times by reading the forum. And apparently the emergency services no longer serve the area.

[Zebedee Tring]

In Beauval Road most of the vehicles, in particular white vans and Chelsea Tractors, speed along at over 20mph. This happens on most of the other roads in the area as well. Perhaps we can all have barriers - this would sort the problem out.

[intexasatthe moment]

" And now I get to find out that someone's saying they've "contacted me" 4 or 5 times by reading the forum. And apparently the emergency services no longer serve the area." ?

Is this a reference to another thread ?

[EDAus]

Living on Ashbourne Grove I am very understanding of the issues around speeding and inconsiderate drivers/riders etc, both ourselves and neighbours have experienced similar issues/concerns to those described by the residents of Melbourne Grove.

I still have lots of questions/concerns based around:

1) consultation with neighbouring impacted residents - how will any future proposals be communicated, how will all the residents voices be heard?

We would have happily turned up to the meeting this week however we were only informed on Monday/Tuesday via a letter through our door which stated ?In the next few day?s , I will be presenting our concerns and idea?s to the Dulwich Community Council? - no date, time or address details were given to attend the meeting. Further it appears that only one option was presented by the Melbourne Grove Traffic Action Group - the closure of Melbourne Grove between Tell Grove and Ashbourne Grove. We would have attended this meeting but had a pre-existing engagement.

2) displacement of the traffic onto equally narrow and busy roads i.e. Ashbourne Grove, Matham Grove - how will such issues be measured?

If Lordship Lane has an accident or a build-up of traffic, northerly traffic will still use Melbourne Grove to avoid the lights near William Rose and Iceland, there by turning into Ashbourne Grove to re-access/join Lordship Lane. Further, cars will still be able to turn from East Dulwich Grove onto Matham Grove, then onto Lordship Lane heading South. Thus the problems and issues are re-routed to Ashbourne Grove and Matham Grove.

3) what other traffic calming measures have been explored ?

One way street systems, chicane?s, flashing speed signs, speed camera?s, access restricting bollards, full width speed bumps, reducing parking to only one side of the street at all times, restricting parking on one side during peak hours of usage to ensure the safe passage of peak hour traffic?

4) Police Traffic Survey report

While lots of stat's have been presented, is 15% of people going over 26pmh higher than average for the road in ED/London? Have studies been conducted on other roads within ED? When does the speeding occur, is it at peak times during the day with multiple road users i.e. children/commuters etc? Anyone willing to post the full report of the EDF?

5) emergency vehicle access and response times.

Often when Lordship Lane is busy or blocked due to accidents or incidents we have blue lights come down Ashbourne Grove - what alternative routes will be available? How will the emergency services be consulted? In using the full length of Melbourne Grove to cut out Lordship Lane the services miss 6 major lights/junctions ? how much would this proposal add to an emergency transfer time?

I would hope that our elected councillors would show due regard to the concerns listed above and incorporate them into the proposed feasibility study. Further I would hope that the feasibility study and consultation period do not run over school term breaks when a majority of residents are not available to provide responses etc.

[bels123]

.