Closure of Melbourne Grove to through traffic - new petition

[richard tudor]

jangle Wrote:

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

> 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.

Old or new you decide. I have a view so do you.

[EDAus]

According to the letter distributed by the Melbourne Grove Traffic Action -

'Some of the Councillors asked if instead we'd consider 'Filtered Permeability''

'After several weeks of door knocking, 138 residents (over half be believe) have signed a petition supporting a barrier at a point between Tell and Ashbourne Grove'

I have now spoken directly to 7 residents on Ashbourne Grove, not one was approached in person regarding traffic issues on Melbourne Grove or to sign any petition. Further, each of the 7 residents has spoken to further individuals within the street who have provided similar feedback.

Some did receive a last minute letter through the mail box two days before the Dulwich Community Council meeting.

Really it not that hard we are just around the coroner (I can provide directions!) - why did they not consult residents in Tell and Ashbourne Grove?

Without a doubt the proposal would improve the 'quality of life' for the individuals on Melbourne Grove South but what about neighbouring streets and residents?

[Bobby P]

"@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."

I am mainly a cyclist and pedestrian (though do still own a car). My point really is that it doesn't matter to the argument whether people's journeys are in your view "necessary" - and, people being people, each individual will have a different view on what is "necessary". Nonetheless those journeys do happen.

For myself, I will use a car for some journeys (major grocery shops to Lidl etc), and it really doesn't matter whether it is my own car or a Zipcar such as you use, it will still have to sit in the same dense traffic if we as a community choose to bottleneck more roads and push all North/South traffic onto Lordship alone. That's the logic I'm trying to get across.

[DominickHide]

"Noticable"!!! You have got to be joking. Have you been standing there tallying for days on end? No. Barber, seriously, stop this now. You very nearly came a cropper with the CPZ fiasco due to your hatred of cars. Do not repeat it here.

James Barber Wrote:

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

> 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.

[wulfhound]

For myself, I will use a car for some journeys (major grocery shops to Lidl etc), and it really doesn't matter whether it is my own car or a Zipcar such as you use, it will still have to sit in the same dense traffic if we as a community choose to bottleneck more roads and push all North/South traffic onto Lordship alone. That's the logic I'm trying to get across.

Makes sense & I agree about the consequences - for me, one day a week of sitting in a longer jam than before is a good trade off for enhanced peace & quiet the rest of the time, but can understand how others might see different.

[Andrew1011]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> 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.

As I said, peripheral.

The campaign was organised by my neighbour, who worked extremely hard on it and who was keenly supported by another neighbour (both now no longer resident in the road), with whom I had worked on the earlier campaign. I couldn't be as involved in the last and successful campaign due to health issues, but I was kept fully informed because I was interested and had been so involved in the earlier (1997/8) campaign to change the route.

In 1997/8, the ward councillors (not Lib Dem) were also very supportive but the lack of success was due to the intransigence of those in charge of what was London Buses. The subsequent change in attitude in favour of changing the 37 route came with increased pressure to improve and maintain bus punctuality, as well as having new more far-sighted people in charge when Transport for London came into existence. The eventual success was due to the hard and long time work of determined local residents to improve what was an intolerable situation and it was not due to ED councillors, regardless of their political colour, so please stop claiming credit for campaigns which pre-date the involvement you or your party.

Also, in reality, what you consider to be a problem in the southern part of Melbourne Grove is absolutely nothing compared to what residents in the northern part previously experienced and, to some extent, continue to experience due to traffic volume. This isolated suggestion will do absolutely nothing to address that and is in no way strategic for the area.

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.

Please don't be obtuse James. You know perfectly well that I was referring to the complete waste of money of the 'treatment' at the southern side of East Dulwich Grove if this road blocking, which you support, goes ahead.

[rch]

I also worked on the 37 rerouting proposal from the Village side (as part of EDG also spans both wards)... this was a perfect example of how the whole community, supported by councillors, can work together to improve the residents' quality of life in a positive way.

The turning point on the ongoing 37 diversion campaign was the fact that the 37 route had to be temporarily rerouted away from Melbourne, down EDG into Lordship, during roadworks. Once the temporary bus rerouting settled in, it was much easier to get the council to persuade TfL not to go back to the Melbourne route, especially as the bus drivers themselves preferred staying on the main road route instead of squishing through the narrow end of Melbourne.

Once the route was permanently diverted away from Melbourne, I managed to persuade parking engineers to create additional parking spaces by the shops at the end when the bus stop was removed, even though creating more parking spaces was technically against Southwark policy. This was intended to take pressure off of resident parking while supporting the shops.

Bear in mind that the northern end of Melbourne is going to get even more complicated as that section gets developed. Residents happily fought the demolishing and redevelopment of the Railway Rise cottages, which would have had dense flats backing onto that section of Melbourne, plus there will inevitably be extra vehicle access along there once the Medical Centre is built on the hosp site.

In tandem with the Medical Centre, I suspect that the Melbourne Grove doctors surgery will be decanted into the the main medical centre and the land (which is owned by NHS) will be sold on to developers for more housing, as dense as they can get away with (with the Garden Centre development setting the precedent and Railway Rise hovering in the wings).

So, it's really important for residents to stick together on all of this and look at the bigger picture. This is why I'm concerned that blocking off one section of the road can cause a knock-on effect that can't be determined at this point in time...

[rch]

While I'm here, I thought I'd throw in this TfL policy document regarding traffic calming measures for Bus Routes, which determined the measures used on EDG, in case it can help the Barry Road residents in their campaign:-

https://tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/trafficcalmingmeasuresleaflet-rev-final.pdf

Edits to add:- Ooops, I've just noticed that this doc is dated 2005, so it may be superceded by legislation... I know that changes have been made to the legislation, but I can't find anything more recent in the public domain.

[James Barber]

hi rch,

It took several years and attempts to get the bus stop removed from Melbourne Grove. I wasn't aware you'd also been trying to get this resolved in the East Dulwich war section of Melbourne Grove.

Hi Andrew1011,

you can have a full raised junction that doesn't cover the whole junction. This whole junction is a crash hot spot and we'll see over the next few years if it is now much after. Hopefully far fewer crashes, lots of money also saved on top f the avoided human suffering.

[Andrew1011]

rch Wrote:

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

> The turning point on the ongoing 37 diversion

> campaign was the fact that the 37 route had to be

> temporarily rerouted away from Melbourne, down EDG

> into Lordship, during roadworks. Once the

> temporary bus rerouting settled in, it was much

> easier to get the council to persuade TfL not to

> go back to the Melbourne route, especially as the

> bus drivers themselves preferred staying on the

> main road route instead of squishing through the

> narrow end of Melbourne.

This is quite right, but don't forget that the impetus for the 1998 campaign to change the 37 route was also due to the road being closed for several months while huge pipes for flood relief were installed under the road. In 1998 we were told by London Buses that the bus stops on Lordship Lane couldn't cope with the extra load arising from a permanent re-routing. We knew this was rubbish but we were then threatened by them with a London Buses application for double yellow lines down one whole side of Melbourne Grove (north). There was also the red herring 'policy' of the need for the 37 to stop at every station - Peckham Rye, East Dulwich, North Dulwich - so basically shadowing the railway.

rch Wrote:

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

> So, it's really important for residents to stick

> together on all of this and look at the bigger

> picture. This is why I'm concerned that blocking

> off one section of the road can cause a knock-on

> effect that can't be determined at this point in

> time...

I absolutely agree.

[Andrew1011]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi Andrew1011,

> you can have a full raised junction that doesn't

> cover the whole junction. This whole junction is a

> crash hot spot and we'll see over the next few

> years if it is now much after. Hopefully far fewer

> crashes, lots of money also saved on top f the

> avoided human suffering.

Lots of hyperbole there James, presumably in a desperate bid to justify non-strategic meddling without evidence.

2018 awaits.

[Jenny1]

Hi James - Thank you for your response sharing observations on traffic flow in the area.

As you say, only a detailed analysis by traffic engineers really shows what's going on. But do we not already have data from research done on Melbourne Grove in 2009 and before? Surely that would give a strong indication of what the knock-on effects of a barrier across Melbourne Grove would be? What data do we already have on this please?

Considering this issue as a whole I think it's important to row back a little, draw breath, and look more carefully at what's happened thus far. One of the questions I would like to address is : 'What is the process for allocating council funding (in this case a predicted ten thousand pounds) for a feasibility study to change a road system?'

The reason I ask is that I imagine that Southwark has a borough-wide policy on traffic and that you and your fellow councillors are charged with implementing that and allocating budgets accordingly within your ward.

I would imagine that money is only allocated for feasibility studies to look at possible changes if it's considered that the proposed changes are a clear priority for the ward (within the overall policy of the borough). And this of course can only be done by looking at the traffic needs of that ward as a whole. I appreciate that a large number of signatures on a petition is an indication that some constituents have a concern over an issue. But I imagine that if we were to organise petitions on any number of similar roads in the area we might gain a similar number of signatures. Since there's not enough funding to pay for numerous feasibility studies we therefore rely on you and your colleagues as councillors to stand back and take a 'global' view of the situation before allocating any council tax funding for such studies. If this does not happen then, at worst, we're in a situation where only those who shout loudest - rather than those with the best case - are heard. Something I'm sure we would all wish to avoid.

I had previously imagined that the budgets you and your fellow councillors administer at ward level were subject to competitive bidding. That constituents were invited to submit proposals for consideration that would then join a list for six monthly or annual review. It would then be up to yourselves - consulting the borough centrally if necessary - to decide which merited funding. But this doesn't appear to be how this particular process has evolved. Could you clarify how spending priorities are determined if this is not the case? Many thanks.

[Jenny1]

As a postscript James.

I'm really appreciative of the fact that you make yourself so available via the forum - clearly not all local councillors offer this.

So I'm sending my query above to ALL concerned councillors - both in East Dulwich and Village Wards - for their response too. I'll get back to the Forum to report on any progress.

Thanks.

[intexasatthe moment]

Jenny1 - 'What is the process for allocating council funding (in this case a predicted ten thousand pounds) for a feasibility study to change a road system? "

excellently put .I've been wondering exactly the same myself .

" Since there's not enough funding to pay for numerous feasibility studies we therefore rely on you and your colleagues as councillors to stand back and take a 'global' view of the situation before allocating any council tax funding for such studies. If this does not happen then, at worst, we're in a situation where only those who shout loudest - "

[DominickHide]

All good questions that should be answered asap.

I still do not think there is a problem as the smaller speed humps still force drivers to slow down due to the fact cars are parked on either side of the road therefore the vehicle cannot drive with all 4 wheels directly astride the hump and so must slow down. Any drivers that do not slow down would not slow at full width humps either.

[James Barber]

55% of the residents along the lower section of Melbourne Grove have signed a petition saying they are experiencing problems. Getting that level of response is impressive.

Hi DominickHide,

Many vehicles can straddle speed cushions and effectively ignore them. Hence why we've converted nearly all of them into full road width sinusoidal humps.

Hi ITATM,

Obtaining 55% of residents signing a petition is a very high hurdle. They asked for an immediate temporary closure which we clearly couldn't support. We're funding a study of up to ?10,000 but hope comes in at the lowest end of the range quoted to us of ?2,500.

Hi Jenny1,

Oh, I've emailed you my response.

Southwark carries out crash reduction work based on the number of crashes - well sort of. It doesn't spend any money reducing crashes on TfL roads which is where the highest proportion happen.

Hence why works have taken place upgrading East Dulwich Grove. Tends to be area or route works. it will be many decades if ever before central southwark funds reach the likes of many of our ED crash hotspots.

Exception is where strategic plan involved such as increasing numbers cycling or walking.

Hence why we've used so much devolved Cleaner, Greener, Safer money over the years to install speed humps around East Dulwich that would never have happened otherwise. And many more residents would like them on their roads. Even with the study costs IF the closure proceeds it will be much cheaper than full road humps replacing the current speed cushions.

[richard tudor]

How many flats/houses are there in this part of Melbourne Grove. How many people live in this part.

How many households signed as separate individuals for the household and not as one house.

There may be one householder that said no and another household with 2/3/4 people who said yes.

Southwark is very clever in using percentages when it helps. They try to avoid giving actual figures.

[hopskip]

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200348/democracy_in_southwark/354/taking_a_deputation

This is how deputations are supposed to run. How many people in the Melbourne deputation? How long did this run for. Was this issue debated by councillors without the intervention of the deputation.

If you were there - you know how this was conducted.

So there is a policy but it can be ignored and ?5-10K allocated on the spot. Really?

[lpool]

Having looked at the proposal, if this is to go ahead I would suggest a very short trial period is necessary to see if it actually works. 4 weeks maximum. Before this can be done traffic measurement of Ashbourne Grove, Chesterfield Grove, Blackwater and Bassano would have to be done for a similar time period.

If the evidence of the trial period shows that there is an increase in traffic volumes on these roads then the proposal should be abandoned and re-looked at. Making Melbourne Grove one-way onto Lordship Lane is another option, but again it is likely to increase traffic on neighbouring roads.

There is also the option to make the above roads No Entry from Melbourne Grove. This allows cars to come down or go up to Lordship Lane, but prevents being used as a cut through from Melbourne Grove. It sounds like many of the Melbourne Grove residents are happy to drive to the end of Melbourne Grove and out via Lordship Lane.

[James Barber]

Hi Richard tudor,

The petition was organised by the campaign and obtained 138 signatures from Melbourne Grove - which checking is about 55% of the number of people registered to vote. I can't vouch for if they're all on the electoral roll.

Hi hopskip,

All East Dulwich and Village ward councillors have had numerous emails from residents about this for circa 4 month before the deputation and had a two page officer report of what our options would be.

Hi lpool,

IF the feasibility study suggests we proceed. If we decide to proceed and IF a public consultation suggests support then I would expect it to be implemented on a trial basis. The rules as I understand them are such a trial would be 6-24 months.

Closing lots of other roads could significantly add cost to the proposal depending on how it is done.

One-way streets tend to have far faster traffic - drivers don't have to think about anyone coming he other way. Part of the proposal is to reduce current speeding.

[richard tudor]

So you have no idea if these people actually live on the road and not non residents who will sign anything if it's green.

[James Barber]

No I didn't say that. The petition clearly showed their addresses on Melbourne Grove. I haven't checked whether they're all on the electoral roll at those addresses. I haven't checked if you are richard.

[intexasatthe moment]

" current speeding " = " 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 "

bet many of us would love to have vehicles doing such low speeds where we live . Southwark rightly doesn't consider these speeds warrant any priority when it comes to upgrading . But a bid can be made for money from the greener ,safer etc fund .

Can we ask again whether funding in the ?5-?10,000 region is available to anyone wanting to bid for funding from this source ? How is it decided who can have feasibilty funding ?

[Zebedee Tring]

A large proportion of the vehicles zooming up and down Beauval Road are doing more than 26 mph - 30 to 35 mph more likely. Perhaps residents of this road should apply for funding.

[hopskip]

James

138 Melbourne signatures. Are these individual households or does it include multiple signatures from the same household?

Does this make any difference?