Closure of Melbourne Grove to through traffic - new petition

[ianr]

rch Wrote:

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

> 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.

Similar to the figures recorded in 2009.

Melbourne Grove South - Period beginning 1 July 2009

Direction

Av. All Vehicles/day

Av. Speed

85th Percentile Speed

Northbound

908

18.2

22.4

Southbound

1127

17.9

21.7

152 were cycles or m/cycles

Melbourne Grove North - Period beginning 2 July 2009

Direction

Av. All Vehicles/day

Av. Speed

85th Percentile Speed

Northbound

2486

18.9

22.4

Southbound

2218

19.0

23.5

254 were cycles or m/cycles

Source Spreadsheet: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/9631/traffic_flow_data Web page: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/3056/transport_data

[Ed: bold terminator added]

[edhistory]

> Melbourne Grove Traffic Action Group

Who?

[EDAus]

Bels123 - thanks for raising this point, it is very relevant and should be included in any feasibility study. Apologies for overlooking the North side of Melbourne Grove, it is easy to get distracted by your own concerns/issues.

Ianr - thanks for the additional data.

So in summary:

2009 - 2,035 vehicles per day on the Southern end of Melbourne Grove

2015 - approx 2,000 vehicles per day on the Southern end of Melbourne Grove

So no major statistical increase in aprox 6 years?

It does raise questions about the statements made in the letter we received from the Melbourne Grove Traffic Action Group which cited 'excessive traffic volume' as an issue. Where the same statements made at the Dulwich Community Council?

Edhistory - the person who signed the letter we received sign it with their name/contact details and Melbourne Grove Traffic Action. Sorry cannot provide further details.

[Galileo]

bels123 I agree. We live on the northern section and the traffic is really not good. With no CPZ people park up in any available space to use the station, so the road is rather narrow making it difficult for vehicles to pass. However the major problem is the impatience of the drivers... many people using the road see it as a "cut-through" not a residential road and therefore get very impatient with residents when parking or when trying to get children into the car or to pack/unpack the car. It's totally understandable that other people do not want traffic pushed onto their equally residential roads - what should be happening is the traffic should be on the main roads. Perhaps a more comprehensive report looking into not just one road, but into the whole area of roads between LL, EDG and Grove Vale would be more effective and efficient. This would not calm the opposition from those who don't perceive a problem, but if a sufficient number of local residents are concerned about these issues and the money is to be spent, a more comprehensive approach would surely be better.

[Penguin68]

...

Added to end bold

[intexasatthe moment]

Thank you for granting my request Penguin ,it was bugging me and I lack the skills to attempt the manoeuvre myself .

[bels123]

.

[rch]

Thanks also from me to Ianr for the data... I've been working from memory of the past investigations, so it's nice to know my memory is accurate!

I also agree that it's very interesting to note that the volume of cars using this side of Melbourne has NOT increased over the past 6 years.

FYI, the last formal investigation/consultation happened during the resurfacing of Melbourne Grove... highway engineers thought that it would be more economical to incorporate any changes of humps, corner build-outs, etc, into the resurfacing works, rather than fund them separately.

So there was a option to upgrade the existing speed cushions into full width humps, which the majority of residents voted against, therefore the speed cushions were reinstated in the resurfacing works.

There was also an option to build out the corners at Chesterfield, which was also voted against because of the potential loss of parking spaces.

It was discussions with engineers during this exercise that identified the solution of creating raised junction schemes at Chesterfield and Ashbourne to address the issues of the residents in that section, but I went along with the majority vote. Also, bear in mind that emergency services and police will be consulted on any changes and they tend to object to anything that will delay response time.

But now that the raised junction schemes have worked so well on East Dulwich Grove, without creating significant delays, I'm wondering if this option should be reconsidered for Melbourne, as it shouldn't delay response times significantly.

But, at the end of the day, the dynamic of the traffic flow in the whole area is so complex, that it might be best to do nothing...

[DominickHide]

There has only been one person knocking on my door trying to get me to support their far fetched unfounded claims, not different people belonging to a 'group'. That person is a new resident. That same person has also started a website about ED that only campaigns for the same unneeded traffic calming non issue. https://melbournegrove.wordpress.com/

I never received any information about this so called 'groups' 'deputation' to DCC through my letterbox, maybe because they know my opinion?

The info and clarity of data as posted by others clearly shows this is utterly unnecessary.

Will DCC now NOT give money to this 'group'?

Hawaii86 Wrote:

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

> 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.

[Andrew1011]

rch Wrote:

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

> FYI, the last formal investigation/consultation

> happened during the resurfacing of Melbourne

> Grove... highway engineers thought that it would

> be more economical to incorporate any changes of

> humps, corner build-outs, etc, into the

> resurfacing works, rather than fund them

> separately.

>

> So there was a option to upgrade the existing

> speed cushions into full width humps, which the

> majority of residents voted against, therefore the

> speed cushions were reinstated in the resurfacing

> works.

>

> There was also an option to build out the corners

> at Chesterfield, which was also voted against

> because of the potential loss of parking spaces.

Yes, I was quite disappointed that the proposed build outs didn't happen as the current wide spaces do give hardened speeders (those who won't be stopped by any calming measures) space to dodge in and out. This also happens on the wide bend at the northern end of the road where drivers accelerate off the cushion near Il Mirto heading south into the wide bend, sometimes in the middle or even sometimes on the other side of the road.

rch Also wrote:

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

> But, at the end of the day, the dynamic of the

> traffic flow in the whole area is so complex, that

> it might be best to do nothing...

I certainly don't believe anything should be done regarding closing off any part of Melbourne Grove in advance of having a clear and proper understanding of the impact of having two new schools (one at the southern end and another roughly in the middle but at the northern end, if Jarvis Road becomes a student entrance/exit) of the road.

There must be proper strategic consideration of this issue based and real evidence and full and proper consultation with all residents who are likely to be affected by this proposal. It cannot go ahead on the basis of pressure from one apparently new resident and one local councillor who doesn't tend to look at issues strategically and who likes to fiddle.

[Bobby P]

Interesting, DominickHide.

The personal site you link to sheds some light on how this all came about and developed very quickly. (For those of us who only found out this week, it's intriguing). What I took away from reading the site is that someone who was genuinely enjoying his new abode in ED, and posting about it, then started to have discussions about traffic calming measures with various people, leading to an embryonic campaign for better speed bumps.

The last post on the site, from May 12th, is about a local councillor coming round to his house to discuss traffic calming, specifically full width speed bumps.

So it seems to be after that that the road blockage idea has been suggested, whether by the Councillor ("something must be done") or the resident. So what seemed to start relatively innocently has mutated only since April 12th into the barrier proposal that is massively more disruptive to many more people, hence our objections.

Perhaps this resident would in fact be satisfied with what until a month or two ago he himself seemed on his website to want and be arguing for, i.e. better speed humps. That probably wouldn't be so controversial, provided it didn't lose parking spaces.

[James Barber]

IF a closure occurred on the southern Melbourne Grove section is would reduce the through traffic along the northern section.

The study should be able to estimate by how much.

If the northern Melbourne Grove section was closed - it would damage the shops - and traffic would divert along Derwent and Elsie. So a lot more complicated.

Fortunately some years ago we organised that the no.37 no longer use that northern section, had full road humps installed and car able to fully park on the road rather than blocking the pavement as they used to.

I'd love other measures - rising bollards, full tables etc. But the only money available for any of these measures is devolved CGS budgets and it won't run to those types of measures.

[Jenny1]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> IF a closure occurred on the southern Melbourne

> Grove section is would reduce the through traffic

> along the northern section.

> The study should be able to estimate by how much.

>

>

>

Hi James

That - to my mind - is a surprising thought. It may be correct - but I'm a little sceptical.

Have previous studies shown that the traffic that uses the northern end of Melbourne Grove is predominantly heading from or travelling towards the southern end of Melbourne Grove?

As someone who has spent years of their life waiting for the 37 bus at a stop on East Dulwich Grove I've had a lot of time to study the junction between that road and Melbourne Grove. My amateur observations suggest that most traffic using the 'top part' of Melbourne Grove is either coming from, or going to, East Dulwich Grove.

I'd be interested to know what the 'stats' show.

Like others I'm concerned that because traffic flows are already complex - and will alter when the new schools are built - it's really important to know how any change to road accessibility will affect the whole area. My gut instinct is that it may be best not to do anything.

[Galileo]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> IF a closure occurred on the southern Melbourne

> Grove section is would reduce the through traffic

> along the northern section.

> The study should be able to estimate by how much.

>

>

> If the northern Melbourne Grove section was closed

> - it would damage the shops - and traffic would

> divert along Derwent and Elsie. So a lot more

> complicated.

>

> Fortunately some years ago we organised that the

> no.37 no longer use that northern section, had

> full road humps installed and car able to fully

> park on the road rather than blocking the pavement

> as they used to.

>

> I'd love other measures - rising bollards, full

> tables etc. But the only money available for any

> of these measures is devolved CGS budgets and it

> won't run to those types of measures.

Also, as regards the shops, are you sure they rely on passing cars for their trade? Many of them seem to be either destination shops which people would drive or walk to regardless or benefit from people walking past on their way to or from the station.

Jenny1 has a point, there is certainly a lot of traffic which turns from EDG.

[edhistory]

> The last post on the site, from May 12th, is about a local councillor coming round to his house to discuss traffic calming, specifically full width speed bumps.

Which councillor?

John K

[Andrew1011]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> IF a closure occurred on the southern Melbourne

> Grove section is would reduce the through traffic

> along the northern section.

> The study should be able to estimate by how much.

The amount of traffic going from the northern side to the southern side is minute compared to that which turns onto East Dulwich Grove. Most of that which does go straight on at that junction is probably people loving either at the northern end of Melbourne Grove or in the streets off it.

James Barber Wrote:

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

> If the northern Melbourne Grove section was closed

> - it would damage the shops - and traffic would

> divert along Derwent and Elsie. So a lot more

> complicated.

No it wouldn't damage the shops at all. As has been pointed out they are destination shops which do not rely on passing motorists for their trade.

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Fortunately some years ago we organised that the

> no.37 no longer use that northern section, had

> full road humps installed and car able to fully

> park on the road rather than blocking the pavement

> as they used to.

Who's this 'we' James? You may have been involved on the periphery but that campaign, like the one six or seven years before it, was organised by people resident in the northern part of Melbourne Grove. By the time of the second campaign TfL had come into being and its staff were far more sympathetic to the arguments (plus they had to put a stop to the delays) about diverting the 37 bus route.

James Barber Wrote:

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

> I'd love other measures - rising bollards, full

> tables etc. But the only money available for any

> of these measures is devolved CGS budgets and it

> won't run to those types of measures.

So, because you and your new local friend have apparently decided that Melbourne Grove should have a barrier at almost the southern end of its northern side, the relative fortune that's recently been spent on the 'treatment' on the southern side of the junction is to be wasted? Where was it the stone they ran out of had to be imported from again?

Also, if you were the councillor who is referred to on 12th May as having visited the new resident at his home, and assuming the visit was made on an earlier date, did it by any chance have anything to do with you trying to persuade him to vote for you on 7th May?

[wulfhound]

" 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 .

In the street grid in some of those areas, that's the end result. In a lot of new build, you have a clear distinction between distributor road (through traffic) & access road (no through traffic) - built like that from the get-go.

" 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 ?

Money's not in the least bit the issue - it's down to willingness to change. None of this stuff costs a lot - a road closure is low 5 figures for consultation and legals, 4 figures for implementation. If - and it's certainly a big if - people want it, it's cheap to do. There's an argument that it's actually cheaper in the long run than doing nothing - whether or not that holds water, spending ?25k to improve a street where the combined housing stock is worth over ?100M is a rounding error.

[James Barber]

The we was my ward councillors and I several years when we undertook to make these changes happen. At various points former Cllrs Richard Thomas, Jonathan Mitchell and current fellow councillor Rosie Shimell.

Hi wulfhound,

I agree. But we don't get a proportion of the total value of the street to improve it. We usually but not always get a relatively small amount of devolved capital budget (?88,000 this FY) to spend on projects covering the whole ward of 5,250 homes.

Hi Andrew1011,

I attempted to have UK stone used but was over ruled by the Labour administration of Southwark Council. I am an opposition councillor so I don't get what I consider common sense as often as I'd like.

Hi Jenny1,

I would agree a larger proportion of traffic goes East dulwich Grove from/to the west and up the northern length of Melbourne Grove. But a noticeable portion goes north south along both sections - is it all local traffic to Melbourne residents - it feels larger volume that that - but I've not noticed many cars coming in and out of the Melbourne/Lordship Lane junction. It could be people then using Ashbourne/Chesterfield to reach their streets across Lordship Lane or could be residents.

That after all is what the study is meant to be about. Working out the traffic flows before and after the proposal so we can then decide what we think should be consulted on.

IF it shows the closure shouldn't proceed it might result in no consultation and the current bumps being upgraded.

[Bobby P]

It was Councillor Kirby, edhistory.

[Bobby P]

With regard to comments on displacement of traffic if roads such as Melbourne are blocked off, I offer only this:

I believe it is more socially and environmentally desirable that in a place like London (not built for the volume of traffic it currently has) that more than one route remains open, even if that means there are "rat runs" in certain configurations.

Forcing all the flow to travel through one artery by blockage of all the others tends to lead to the death of the patient. If in this case, Lordship Lane becomes the only route N/S that people can pragmatically use, it ultimately degrades quality of life and air for all, not to mention the inconvenience of sitting in a time-sucking traffic jam that has been created by blocking all the other routes one could take to make the same journey.

I strongly believe allowing people alternative routes is the lesser of two evils. I happened to be strolling down Melbourne at different times in today's lovely weather, for instance, and barely encountered a car, the same story I find on weekdays and for the last 12 years of residence. As some have pointed out from their analysis of the traffic surveys, the road can often be completely quiet for a minute or two at a time with that volume, and never suffers congestion.

If keeping alternative routes open eases traffic snarls elsewhere by spreading the inevitable London burden of traffic to manageable levels across different roads, I welcome it.

[richard tudor]

Let's all be honest, it all has to do with enhancing property values. Making sure over strechec new residents do not face a loss.

MG has always been a secondary route to LL and always will be. It is not a new rat run but an established route.

Unfortunately new residents seem to have rosy coloured glasses where their property is concerned.

All those who went to the Camberwell Grove meeting many years ago will recall that new residents claimed it was a new run. They were laughed at.

Just let the matter be although Cllrs egos will no doubt have to be sated.

The whole thing is a joke.

[edhistory]

Bobby P Wrote:

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

> It was Councillor Kirby, edhistory.

Thank you.

Does this councillor live near Melbourne Grove?

What do her most recent nomination papers have as her home address?

Is she a parchutist?

John K

[wulfhound]

richard tudor Wrote:

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

> Let's all be honest, it all has to do with enhancing property values.

Sort of. Removing traffic makes a place nicer to live in - and therefore people are prepared to pay more money to live there. This could, however, be taken as an argument against anything that makes a place nicer to live. So people new to an area seek to improve it, and that's somehow a bad thing?

Has it occurred to you that these people, presumably home owners - might actually just want to improve their quality of life, rather than their bank balance?

If a nice coffee shop opens up down the road, I'll support it because I like drinking nice coffee, not because it makes my house worth an extra ?10k.

@bobby p - we'll have to agree to disagree. You're working from the built-in assumption that all those journeys are necessary, that people have "no alternative" to sitting in jams. I'm approaching it (as a ZipCar-driver, ex car owner, parent of young kids) from the point of view that maybe a quarter of those car journeys could reasonably be walked, a quarter cycled, and a quarter made by public transport - given sufficient motiviation to do so. Certainly that seems to be the experience in (equally Tube-less) Hackney, where car ownership & use is in free fall.

[jangle]

Richard Tudor - 'let's be honest' this is not about property values, it's about residents having an opinion on and trying to influence their quality of life on a heavily used residential road. Oh and for the record I've lived in ED for 13 years and on MG for 6 years, does that make me a new or old resident? Not sure whether I'm allowed an opinion in your world.

Original discussions amongst a group of residents centred around full width speed bumps; it was a councillor's suggestion to conduct a feasibility study around a barrier. So, before you write your own version of how this all came about I suggest you get your facts straight.

[intexasatthe moment]

Unfortunately we do have an existing set of streets struggling to cope with traffic .We don't have an area set to be developed with new build and a pedestrianised environment created .

I don't think " retro fitting " is a viable option and I don't think closing off a few streets here and there will reduce pressure on the overall system.

If part of Melbourne Grove is blocked off some of it's residents will have a " nicer place to live " because traffic will be limited in their immediate vicinity .I can't see any benefit to the wider community ,rather the opposite .

I don't want to support making life nicer for one group of individuals when that action disadvantages others .