rch

But James, the local police are telling me something completely different, so I don't know where this concept of "excessive speeding" is coming from. It may be that 15% of the vehicles are going over 25mph, but 26 mph isn't really overly excessive in a road where is the overall average speed is under 20mph. But I don't think it's right for me to cut and paste from an email discussion with the relevant sergeant, so I've asked the sergeants of both relevant wards to request for an official police statement about the Melbourne Grove traffic monitoring stats to be issued before the next DCC.

Oh hang on... I've just looked at the report, the vehicle count is split separately, so the count IS actually around 2000 vehicles per day if you count in both directions. So, movements of local vehicles would be about a quarter of that total or maybe up to a third or half of that if you include the side streets.

Peng, to be fair, there is a very small group of long term residents who have been banging on about this for some time... this is exactly WHY there have already been TWO consultations between 2004-2009. I have also spoken to some other new residents who have been brought on board with the barrier campaign, but some of them have admitted that they don't understand the implications and the fact that we have already been through this twice and therefore it's not really a great use of public funding to commission yet another study which will cite exactly the same data stats.

Hi, Woodward. Yep, exactly. The way traffic engineers estimate vehicle ownership on a road is to do a vehicle count at around 6am on a Tuesday morning (doing it on a weekend isn't accurate as many residents go away for a weekend and sometimes go straight to work on a Monday morning, so it's best to do it before work early to mid week). I'm too lazy to do a 6am count, but I've counted 160 vehicles on a Sunday morning at around 9am, so I'm guessing that this would probably be 175-200 on a 6am Tues count. The other roads to count would be Playfield and Lytcott, which are "landlocked" in that they have no direct access out to Lordship... then we have Colwell, Blackwater, Chesterfield, and Ashbourne, all of which exit onto Lordship, but which would run along Melbourne at least part of the time to get to EDG in order to go east-west or maybe bypass the Lordship backlog to get to Grove Vale.

Bear in mind that all local TMOs should be approved by the DCC, so it's always worth checking the agenda in advance. It's usually the last item of the evening, so it means hanging around until the end. But if residents don't flag up issues, then cllrs will follow the advice of the highway engineers, which is how a lot of this stuff gets rubber stamped through.

Bels123, I'm so glad that you've seen the TfL emergency bus diversion for yourself... I've brought this aspect up several times but it just goes in one ear and out the other, so I'm pleased that there are two of us now. Ever since the full width humps were installed on the north side of Melbourne, the southern end has become the emergency bus diversion route (which, as a bus user, I'm fine with). A barrier would have a significant knock on effect to emergency vehicles as well, which I see cutting through here quite regularly. Mockingbird, you're a genius! Supporters of the barrier have been quoting 2000 vehicles per day, citing this as extreme for a residential road, but of course the total figure should be divided by 14, not 7... duh! I reckon that there are roughly 175-200 vehicles along here owned by residents themselves, which means that up to half of the 1000 movements a day could simply Melbourne residents going about their normal daily business, not even including the residents of the side streets. Penguin, I completely agree with you. Furthermore, any HGV issues could be dealt with by implementing build outs at the Chesterfield junction, which would also act as speed calming measures if they are designed properly. Or maybe something as simple as a pedestrian island there would work. But it's really not that bad around here, so I can understand why the council hasn't wanted to spend the money.

Bear in mind that I am "colleagues" with a lot of people and will work with anyone who is interested in improving the community, regardless of political affiliation. And I totally agree that there needs to be joined up thinking with regards to traffic movements across the area, not necessarily delineated by wards. We need for the whole community - young and old, drivers, pedestrians and cyclists - to be able to use our streets easily and safely. Maybe we need to start a new campaign with petition signatures to this effect, calling for a comprehensive traffic management study, in order to draw councillors attention to the bigger picture beyond the Barrier Madness??

But James Barber is an East Dulwich ward cllr, not Village... he probably wasn't even copied in on the original notifications. Promising further consultation is all well and good, but the final decision is down to the Cabinet Member. Furthermore, the funding issue was another complex layer... exacerbated by holding off the final design approval until after the May 2014 local election. I hate the politics, it's one of the reasons why I'm glad to be out of it... on the other had, I love the community and want to keep working for the better of the residents. There is talk of both Dulwich Village and Herne Hill investigating setting up a formal Neighbourhood Forum, maybe that's the best way forward. If they do this, then maybe we should look at doing it in East Dulwich as well...

I agree in theory, but the technical part of the problem with the Townley situation is the ward boundaries, as cllrs outside of Village ward wouldn't have had a significant amount of influence. On top of that you have the issue of being a councillor in opposition to an administration with a strong overall majority and therefore a general public mandate. And you can't really blame the engineers as they are under instruction from the administration, which also has a majority vote in the DCC. I guarantee you that if I had still been a Village ward councillor, that I would have made as huge a fuss as possible about this redesign, even if I couldn't have stopped it, as I know the background even better than some of the current highway engineers... but you get what you vote for.

To be fair, I don't think that this was specifically a case of bypassing cllrs, it was more just a relatively standard statutory resurfacing consultation. Cllrs get given a schedule of works and are therefore aware of what's happening in their wards, but in this case I think that officers thought that the tweaks that they were incorporating into the road resurfacing plan were in line with what the residents wanted. The interesting thing about this one is that the switch to the full width humps weren't actually listed in the covering letter... it wasn't until one looked at the drawing that one could see what was being proposed, which is what triggered off the alarm, which in turn triggered the objections. The Red Post Hill hump consultation which took place a year after the Melbourne resurfacing saga is a similar case, it was meant to be a bog standard consultation... residents were in support of the proposed implementation of the humps that were meant to slow down the traffic until the heavy vehicles going over them started to keep them awake at night and manifest cracks in their houses. At this point the residents in the road united in protest, at which an extra ?40,000 had to be found to take out the humps and implement the ped islands. Townley Road was a more complicated issue, as this redesign had been on the cards ever since the original junction had been bodged by TfL improperly... where it became a problem is that Tooley St politics became a driving factor in the redesign rather than the needs of the community. In fact, I predict that the junction redesign in the middle of Dulwich Village will become a similar issue. But from my perspective the problem is poor engagement with the community leading to a lack of understanding of what the real issues and possible solutions are. This isn't helped by the fact that the cllr position is still only a part-time role split between three elected members per ward who don't necessarily communicate with each other... while this might have worked back in the 50s and 60s, the whole system really needs to be reviewed, in my opinion, with a view towards cllrs becoming a full time role with proper compensation and a support system rather than a "volunteer" role limited to hands off "representation" and scrutiny, which can be fobbed off by an administration based five miles away. In the meantime, we've now got the madness of a barrier, with knock-on effects, which we need to address...

I can confirm Jenny's version of events because I've now found the paperwork! Residents got a very lowkey letter on July 19th 2009 to consult on Melbourne Grove Highway Improvements to begin in early August (just two weeks later!). In the diagram that was attached to the letter, the road resurfacing was to include full-width humps and the narrowing of the entrance to Chesterfield... if no one had replied to the consultation then this is what would have gone through, but a majority residents responded in unison against the changes. From memory, I think the engineers were quite shocked at the level of objections against the full width humps, I think they just assumed that this is what residents wanted. In fact, from other paperwork in my file (yes, I'm sad!), it looks like the road resurfacing was delayed until May 2010 (almost a year), presumably until the redesign without the humps and the Chesterfield narrowing was formally approved to represent residents' wishes. Just to be clear, I don't remember being told about this in advance as a cllr (which is probably also why James doesn't remember it), I only got the letter as a Melbourne resident. I remember people stopping me in the street and ringing my doorbell because they were freaking out about the humps, though, but all we could do was to object.

There was a consultation on full width humps vs cushions in tandem with the statutory consultation for the road resurfacing, as highway engineers cleverly calculated that it would be more cost-effective to incorporate the implementation of full-width humps into the resurfacing exercise rather than going back and replacing the cushions. But the residents voted to keep the cushions and from memory so did the police and emergency services. The main worry was vibrations and structural damage from the humps for not much gain in traffic calming, as the speed surveys show that there aren't speeding problems (ianr posted the routine surveys from 2009 on June 26th, although the document attached to the link seems to have curiously been changed?). Another mitigating factor is that the row of 8 houses between Colwell and Blackwater are converted shops with no front garden and basements, with flooding issues from the Victorian sewage system, so even the engineers were concerned about potential structural damage if full width humps were implemented. Bear in mind that now this section has three pumps installed by Thames Water as part of the flood alleviation scheme, so vibrational issues would be even more of a problem along here to the point where humps would probably be avoided in this section even if the road voted in favour in general. Another part of the consultation that was voted against by residents was the build out scheme at the junction of Chesterfield and Melbourne, mostly because of the potential loss of parking. In hindsight, implementing build outs at the Ashbourne and Chesterfield junctions would probably positively address the issues along that narrow point of Melbourne Grove, although I'm going off of the suggestion of the raised junction table in the buildout now that I can see the problems on EDG. Build outs on their own would probably do the trick, especially if they had nice planting on them. Having said that, the Chesterfield junction is probably large enough to incorporate a pedestrian island instead of a buildout, which would act as a calming measure as well as a pedestrian crossing point for not much cost. From memory, the barrier suggestion has also been discounted in the past, mostly because of the displacement and the emergency services. I've probably got all the documentation of both consultations (including the original one with Tessa Jowell which led to the cushions) buried in 12 years of paperwork... but I'm not sure I have the energy to dig through it all. In any case, at least three of us on this forum remember the more recent one, so Jenny's not imagining it.

I guess they might have let the concrete underlay set while they waited for the granite to arrive... we'll see how long it takes from this point, but it sounds pretty straightforward now.

Just to note that the workmen are out there today installing kerbs. I was so happy to see this that I chatted to the guys and asked what the hold-up was and they said that they had to wait for the granite kerbs to arrive from China. The kerbs should be done by Monday and then they'll install the pavement, so hopefully it will all be done by the end of next week, fingers crossed. The granite deliver delay isn't a wind-up, this has happened before (the Melbourne/EDG raised junction for example)... Southwark orders in bulk to save money (not just from China, there have been delays from Ireland as well), but works get delayed when supply runs out of the specified units.

I seem to remember that that tree outside the police station is specially conditioned to be protected, so I'll be keeping my eye on that one as well. In my opinion the piecemeal nature of everything is simply down to a lack of joined-up thinking in the Tooley Street hierarchy. However, I'm currently in touch with residents around the area who are preparing to launch a campaign for joined-up thinking in traffic flow studies and highway improvement recommendations, so hopefully there will soon be a petition that we can all sign in order to unite to get our views heard.

In the meantime, I'm keeping my eye on Calton as well... trying to protect trees, that I cited at the very beginning, from being bulldozed. The one on Green Dale has just had its pit restored (thanks to help from James), so hopefully it won't die, fingers crossed. But the three trees on the Calton buildout are a bit too close to the new cycle path that's being dug for comfort. They could have moved these trees during the dormant season rather than putting them at risk, so it will be interesting to see what happens. In the meantime, the cyclists are speeding on the pedestrian pavement along the buildout now that the junction is closed, I nearly got hit four times when I was surveying the trees yesterday.

The irony here is that I was awarded a ?2000 CGS grant last Feb to have a highways engineer perform a study of traffic/pedestrian movements for the junction of Lordship Lane and Whateley Rd, to tie in with the new school, with a view towards recommending improvement measures. I know this junction well so when I asked people on the forum if they wanted me to put in any specific bids, someone requested this and I did it. I haven't been assigned a highway engineer yet, it probably won't happen until Sept now, by which time the building works for the school should be in progress, so I'll post an update with a view towards getting general views about this particular situation in relationship to the bigger picture of the surrounding roads. But it would be so much better if we could get a plan to address the problems and knock-on effects in our defined area rather than these piecemeal projects that someone sitting at a computer in Tooley Street is throwing money at.

Yes, I'm also noticing the displaced traffic on Melbourne from the Townley works, as well. The first day was the worst, when one lane of EDG was closed in addition to Townley itself, but it's got slightly better since both lanes of EDG are now open. And the independent schools are now closed, otherwise it would be much worse.

Hi Zeb, Deborah Collins is Matt's higher up boss... she's also very good, but I'm not sure how the reorganisation following Des' retirement will affect the structure and communication of information. It's probably best to continue to go the cllr/MP route, but bear in mind that council officers take direction from elected members at the end of the day... I'll get a copy of the Southwark News and have a look.

I hear what you're saying, Zeb, but the immediate problem is that Matt's boss, Des Waters (aka 'Saint Des') is in the process of retiring, so my guess is that there will be a bit of an internal reorganisation until Sept. So, you might as well get the cllrs to start the process with Matt, otherwise it will be Christmas before you get a straight answer... To be fair, Matt is actually a really good guy... I suspect that he is under instructions from above to 'manage expectations'.

My instinct is that highways manager Matt Hill would be the best person to approach to get to explain the process, probably copy in all the councillors as this will probably need an official request. Let me know if you get an answer, as I'm a geek about these sorts of things...

I'm the former cllr that is being referred to and, yes, the ongoing orchard vandalism has definitely had an effect on how much energy I put into community projects. And I did have the audacity to speak out during the deputation as some of the facts quoted were so questionable that other local residents sitting with me were also getting increasingly upset. Unfortunately the deputation wasn't recorded, so I can't prove what I thought I heard and the clerk's notes were interrupted by my objections. But residents are still stopping me in the street and emailing me, asking me for my advice on how their voices can be heard, so hopefully an alternative campaign will emerge. And I'm still going to consistently try to correct disinformation... For instance, in above posts in this thread, it's now being stated that 55% of Melbourne Grove residents have signed the petition in favour of the barrier... but in the deputation it was stated that a majority of REGISTERED VOTERS on Melbourne Grove signed the petition, which would exclude any residents under the age of 18... which in turn casts a question of what percentage of RESIDENTS actually signed the petition. In theory, anyone of any age can sign a petition but then we need to determine how many residents live on the road, as opposed to how many registered voters, in order to confirm what the majority opinion is. And we STILL don't know how many residents/registered voters signed the speed hump petition and how many signed the barrier petition.

Yes, if you scroll down to the General Exception Notice at the bottom of the list, point 2 relates to the 3-month lead in for the Streetworks permits before the works could begin in the first week of July, then point 3 refers to the advertisement of Traffic Management Orders. So, it looks to me like the cabinet member approved the decision to go ahead with the amended design, which was needed before the statuatory Streetworks permits and Traffic Management Orders could be legally obtained, which needed 3 months. Hmm, the Streetworks permit scheme legislation changed in Apr 2015, but I don't know if/how this would affect an application made in March 2015... apparently the council can now grant their own permission? Don't have time to study this:- https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/street-works-permit-schemes-amendments-to-regulations

Hmm, interesting, Tessmo. My cllr highway design protocol training was awhile ago, so I may indeed be wrong... perhaps this reconfiguration could have just been approved by the cabinet member as this is a TfL road with TfL funding? Would be interested to know the precise policy behind this if someone has a chance to request further information... But it appears that this current consultation is only yellow lines, etc. p.s. Looking at the map on page 16 of the Traffic Order PDF, it looks like the trees on the Calton Ave build out are going to have to be removed to accommodate the cycle lane cutting through it, so I will attempt to get the tree manager to arrange transplanting of those if needed, before they get murdered. October would be best time to transplant but we may not have that option.

One other relevant factor... I noticed yesterday that the volume of traffic has increased noticeably on Melbourne Grove (where I live) since Townley has been blocked off, even considering that the independent schools are out now. This makes me think that if Melbourne is blocked off with this mad barrier scheme, Townley will have a similar knock-on increase in volume which the new junction design won't be able to cope with... so you guys should be aware of what impact the Melbourne Barrier feasibility study could have if engineers miss out the Townley/Calton knock-on aspect.