rch

Firstly, trees... thanks for the offer, intexas, unfortunately exposing the roots may have already caused enough damage to slowly kill it. James has notified the tree manager who is liaising with highways and I have identified a location to transplant it to asap, but nothing seems to be happening. I flagged this tree during the St Barnabas consultation, but was told that it would be okay and not need transplanting... it looks like contractors have over-zealously prepped the area not realising the problem with leaving the roots exposed. Am trying to bug everyone, but my own life is complicated at the moment, so I don't have time to be consistently annoying... Am also hoping that the rain will help out some of the other trees I'm worried about, will let you know if we need to do a watering session. MarkT, I suspect that the first Traffic Order for the junction reconfiguration was registered just after the March 17th DCC approval and has gone through (prob at the end of June, just before the prep work started) and that this one is a supplemental one to tidy up the no parking orders, etc., but I don't have time to dig through documentation.

I've had a quick look... it looks like this Traffic Order mainly addresses the permanent parking restrictions (i.e., double yellow lines and School Keep Clear markers) along the build outs of all four arms of the junction redesign, which makes me think that the main junction redesign Traffic Order has already been publicised and approved. I'll try to have a better look later when I have more time and post an update. FYI, I've been trying to save a tree on Green Dale that has had its roots exposed during the cycle lane prep work, but I think the poor thing is going to die.

Glad to hear that something is in motion... it may well be that they can adjust the angle of the ramp in the first instance to try to tone down the problem until a ped island can be implemented. Can't remember off the top of my head, but EDG may well come under Highways England as it's a TfL controlled road, not a Southwark controlled road. Wasn't trying to be party-political, Andrew... Michael was a cllr when the EDG works were designed, consulted, and implemented so he'll be more up to speed (bad metaphor!) than the other two. While waiting for Deborah to refer to Matt, then to Chris Mascord, I figured it would be quicker to go from Michael directly to Chris without having to get held up by explanations.

To be fair to James, this section of EDG isn't in his ward... try emailing Michael Mitchell. The highways team is Chris Mascord and Matt Hill, who should be overseeing the Townley junct implementation, so a site visit should be easy to arrange. The ped island was supposed to be part of a three-part traffic slowing tactic around that corner... firstly, the road was narrowed, then the ramp/table was put in, and then the island with illuminated bollards was intended to work in tandem to get vehicles to slow down by providing even further narrowing. Plus, a lot of the elderly residents wanted a crossing further down than Velde, on the way to the shops and bus stops. But it sounds like something definitely needs to be done to tweak it. As a resident of Melbourne Grove, I totally agree that the current proposals are completely mad.

Yes, I seem to remember as well that new full width speed humps have been banned, but I can't find the reference now. I think they can only be reinstated where they already exist. These days designers tend to go for more "organic" ways of controlling traffic such as the build outs and ped islands... the only problem with this method is that parking spaces can be lost in giving the islands clearance, but you can usually find a balance. Raised tables can work in some instances, but if the ramp is too steep it can cause the noise and shaking.

A new thread specifically about problems with ramps and speed humps, with suggestions of alternative ways of controlling traffic speed, could be useful (the legislation has changed in the past few years and is more flexible)... I did a lot of work when I was a cllr on this - we actually had the humps on Red Post Hill removed and replaced with pedestrian islands precisely because of the noise and structural damage.

Part of the problem with that ramp/speed table on EDG by Thorncombe is that it was originally designed to be a raised pedestrian crossing with a pedestrian island in the middle of it to act as a second speed calming measure - you can see where the white paving stones are set in the tarmac to mark the crossing point for pedestrians. But then the design standards in the blasted new highway guide kicked in and made this extra measure against policy, which is completely mad because a ped island would definitely act as another calming measure along there as well as creating another much-needed crossing point. So, going back and implementing the ped island there would probably be the most cost-effective way of addressing the speeding at that ramp/table which are creating the noise problems, if you can get cllrs to lobby for this. But, also, the rainwater drain covers are bashing REALLY LOUDLY when vehicles run over them, because they've sunk into the tarmac as it settled and are not supported properly. As I was walking along one day in April I was so shocked by the noise generated by the bashing drain cover that I took a photo of the most faulty drain cover (on the Thorncombe side) and sent it to the highway engineer who oversaw the EDG project, but I never heard anything back as I'm not a cllr anymore and technically not a resident of that road. I'll try to attach the photo to this post so that you can see what I'm talking about, you can see how the drain is sunk into the tarmac. The drain cover on the other side is also sunk and needs fixing. Normally, there will be a follow-up inspection several months after road works have been done to tweak any issues that emerge... and with builders on site for the Townley junct works and the tweaking of the Hillsborough junction, this would be the most cost-effective time to address the flagged issues of the recent EDG traffic calming works.

I would love to see the two-page officer report!!

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.

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...

Thanks, James, for intervening on the Green Dale tree... I have got the email to the tree dept that you copied me on, so will respond to that. Was going to respond to Dominik's post, but it looks like it's been deleted...

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...

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.

I could try, but they tend not to respond directly to me because I'm not a cllr anymore. I suppose I could copy Matt together with Gary Meadowcroft in the tree dept and see if I get a response before the tree dies...

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.

James, can you find out what's going to happen to the exposed Yedoensis cherry tree in the new bike lane on Green Dale, by the new Townley junction?? Highway engineers said that no trees would be murdered in the creation of the new junction scheme, but the cherry tree I was worried about is now isolated with its roots exposed in the preparation work. If it really needs to go, I would rather that it was transplanted than cut down, but now is not a great time to transplant trees. I pointed this out to them during the consultation and they promised it would be okay, but now I'm worried...

If someone wants to form a formal opposition group, let us know... I know loads of Melbourne Rebels who would join in with the side streets!

And, for the record, I totally agree that Barry Road has more serious issues than Melbourne Grove. Plus, the junction of Barry with Lordship is regularly cited by the police as the worst hotspot in the Dulwich area. Although Barry is classed as a principle road rather than a residential road, it could be very positively addressed with the same type of traffic calming measures as were recently implemented on East Dulwich Grove (which is also a bus route). In fact, it's these types of measures that I'm suggesting for the Melbourne problem, as they have been shown to be effective with the least amount of knock-on problems.

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.

Hi James... if you really want to improve the whole road's quality of life, then consult on putting two barriers in at either main junction so that the whole road benefits. As for raised junctions, I'd love to see a current estimate, as previous estimates for one junction were about the same cost as removing the cushions and instating full width humps. The works would have to be phased if the full amount couldn't be allocated, but it's better than going through this same discussion every five years. What we really need is access to a highways engineer!

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 ( 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. 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. 3. FYI, putting a barrier across Melbourne in the section by Ashbourne won't stop Iceland lorries accessing Chesterfield, because the lorries access from the Lordship Lane end of Melbourne, which will remain accessible under the proposed gate (and will probably become the new displacement rat-run). The only thing that will stop lorries from accessing Chesterfield is to bring the corners closer together, which was consulted on in the last consultation and refused. 4. A raised junction scheme might be more expensive than a gate, but it will probably address the perceived problems once and for all, which will save us the cost of going through consultations over and over every five years. This is the third time in the past ten years (that I can remember) we have gone around this same issue... someone has incurred the cost of the Applied Traffic survey, along with officer time to advise cllrs and cabinet member, and now we will spend ?10K in council funds. So, would be good to at least cost up a raised junction scheme to consider as an option, even if it has to be phased. 5. The main reason why Townley/Calton etc was requested to be included on the Melbourne Barrier consultation is because this route is the ONLY OTHER alternative route linking Lordship and EDG, so a lot of the traffic would logically displace to that route which will also be affected by the dysfunctional new junction scheme... so comparing this consultation with the Townley junction consultation (which residents considered flawed in any case) is spurious... I also agree that comparing the recent Melbourne roadworks closure is spurious. Officers have always advised that it takes at least a year to accurately measure displacement, so any trial should last at least a year.

Bobby P, I wish we could "favourite" posts on this forum... you've summed it up perfectly!

Actually, if barriers were put in at both the Lordship Lane junction and EDG junction of Melbourne, that would create a blissful environment for all of us... but only blocking off the middle will only create mini-rat runs at either end, especially with schools being built at either end. But these types of treatments usually work best on small side roads, which Melbourne Grove is not. Intexas... the problem with the buses isn't the Dulwich Estate, it's TfL. We've campaigned for years, both as residents and even as united cross-party and cross ward councillors (we even united with Lambeth cllrs at one point for a major review of the whole area) but TfL just fob us off saying there isn't enough demand for more bus services. The reason why there isn't a great demand is because people use cars because the bus service is so bad. The most ongoing campaign is to extend the 42 route to supplement the dysfunctional 37 route... the NHS said that they intended to try to pick this up in advance of building the new health centre on the Dul hosp site, so hopefully the footfall created by a new health centre along with a new school will change TfL's mind. But this is only a small fragment of the bigger picture...

I must say, in this age of austerity, I can think of better things to spend ?10k of public money on! I'm now really curious as to WHO actually suggested a barrier in the first place... especially as this option has been investigated in the past. At the meeting last night, I actually requested that an investigation of raised junction treatments be included as an alternative option in the barrier review. FYI, if we build out the corners on Chesterfield, this will also solve the Iceland lorry issue (soon to be multiple deliveries by M&S), so we'll be killing two birds with one stone. But there are so many layers of politics involved in this project now that I really don't have much faith... As for the volunteer speed camera program... this program requires special training for residents, which deals with aggression by drivers. We wouldn't expect untrained local residents to perform this exercise themselves, but only specially trained and accredited volunteers. At the moment, a police officer is accompanying resident volunteers (in plain clothes if requested). Ironically, the police sarg said last night that he was out on Melbourne Grove just yesterday afternoon with a volunteer resident measuring traffic speeds, so this process has already begun. I didn't have a chance to ask him if they actually caught anyone speeding.

I can see that a more appropriate thread has been started for the Melbourne Barrier subject, but I just wanted to follow up a couple of things here... Firstly, I agree that improving cycling measures in the area will indeed help to get residents out of cars, but we have a higher demographic of elderly people and mothers with several young children who can't cycle, so improving the bus service is an essential option. The bus service north-south on Lordship Lane is great if you're going north or south, but the east-west provision is awful which makes getting to train stations, schools, and running local errands difficult. It takes me over half an hour to walk into the village or to Herne Hill from my house on Melbourne Grove, which is often quicker than waiting around for the 37 bus. This same journey takes between 5-10 minutes by car depending on traffic. Lastly, to clarify, Calton Ave have actually been campaigning for some time for a gate to narrow the vehicle widths at the top of Calton, not an actual barrier. FYI, there is a currently barrier at the bottom of Gilkes Crescent at the junction of Calton which you all can go have a look at to see what is being suggested... this sort of measure works much better at the end of a road than in the middle, as it's clearer to passing traffic that a road is inaccessible, also it looks like there will be about four parking spaces lost, which is easier to accommodate at the end of a road. Edited to add... oops, I posted to the wrong thread, but I'll leave it because it's actually a better thread.