intexasatthe moment

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

My reading from the correspondence to JB is that most of the works only need temporary Traffic Orders which have to be advertised but not consulted on . But " certain, limited elements of the scheme require permanent Traffic management orders to be made. Specifically, where new double yellow line restrictions and mandatory cycle lanes are proposed. These have not yet been advertised but will be in July by way of press advert and street notice.Due process will be followed regarding making TMOs for these elements of the scheme " it was possible to start the other works without having to wait for the TMO for the yellow lines and bike lane . That's ok isn't it ?

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 ?

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 .

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 .

Ah ,more tips for EADus In case you missed it - don't worry too much about how many signatures you get on the petition . Just claim that it's representative ,that should be good enough to get through the careful scrutiny given by Community Council meetings before they agree to dishing out thousands for studies .

" Intexas... As I understand it schools are free to book these pitches, apart from Harris who where "barred"." "The school is free to book sports pitches on Peckham Rye Common and Peckham Rye Park Extension. " how do we find out which of these statements is correct ?

Perhaps model yourselves on the Melbourne Grove group ? Collect data ,apply a little spin eg 22mph = speeding /breaking the speed limit ,get a petition ,form a delegation to present at a DCC . Oh ,and get councillors on your side .

" But.. the knock on effects of this and the proposed Calton closure on Townley need to be considered very carefully in relation to the Cycle Quietway. If the long term plan is for Townley to carry most/all of the cross-traffic (effectively being upgraded to a main road) & Calton is to be closed, that needs quite a different set of interventions to make the Quietway work than if both Melbourne and Calton remain open to traffic. " quite ,knock on effects . I was really astonished to hear a council officer breezily bat away questions at a DCC meeting about the effect of the proposed changes to the Townley Rd on Calton Ave " not in the remit of the study " . The thought of road closures now being at the whim of articulate middle class groups with Southwark forking out thousands of pounds for studies and no joined up thinking ,terrifies me .

All the roads in this area have seen increased volumes of traffic over the years . All the roads are residential - and guess what ,they're all part of the traffic system and always have been . They've not been turned into being part of a traffic system by stealth or any other means . Improving one person's lot by making things worse for others ,particularly when it's unclear who or how this is arbitrated concerns me . Will the residents in newly created no through roads be required to relinquish car ownership or will they be able to carry on adding to the pollution for the rest of us while isolating themselves from the effects of vehicle movements ?

Ah yes of course , now I get it . We have roads that combine being principal and residential .And these can't have gates . And some roads are purely residential and can have gates . Even if they are important traffic through routes carrying lots of traffic . So the people who live on roads like Barry Rd will suffer increased traffic ,pollution and accidents as they absorb the traffic displaced from roads that become no through roads . And I would imagine the value of property in these gated havens will rise and that of property in the increasingly busy roads will fall . An argument for lower council tax in principal roads I think .Although ,hang on a minute that won't work will it ? We'll all have to bear the cost of traffic works to make residential roads traffic free . And the added health and social costs for those living on principal roads . Thank goodness we've got councillors carefully weighing up competing demands and ensuring that there is the correct balance between making roads purely residential and retaining mobility . No doubt this is a scientific process involving masses of data and borough wide planning .And ear plugs to drown out the he who shouts loudest /is most articulate effect . I can sleep easy in my bed ( suffocating with my windows closed because I live on a principal rd ) knowing that the correct balance will be achieved .

Thanks for vote of support for blocking off Barry Rd edhistory . 4 gates x 6 car parking spaces = loss of 24 car parking spaces = greater likelihood of CPZ and lots of councillor support . I'm on to a winner !

It's clear that the Committee has agreed that the suggestion is really an excellent plan. But in view of some of the doubts being expressed, may I propose that I recall that after careful consideration, the considered view of the Committee was that, while they considered that the proposal met with broad approval in principle, that some of the principles were sufficiently fundamental in principle, and some of the considerations so complex and finely balanced in practice that in principle it was proposed that the sensible and prudent practice would be to submit the proposal for more detailed consideration, laying stress on the essential continuity of the new proposal with existing principles, the principle of the principal arguments which the proposal proposes and propounds for their approval. In principle. lovely!

There's an awful lot of traffic along Barry Rd .The situation is made worse because it lacks speed humps and is used by buses and other heavy traffic . Additionally because it is long and straight many vehicles reach excessive speeds .The number of joggers running the length of the road add to the mayhem and are a hazard for pedestrians . I feel that the balance has shifted so that the use of the road for mobility reasons is completely out of balance with it's residential nature .The noise ,pollution and danger caused by vehicles along this road is much greater than that experienced by Melbourne Grove residents . I understand that funds are limited in these days of austerity and that many traffic calming measures may be too costly so feel that the provision of gates at either end -junction with Lordship Lane and Peckham Rye ends and additionally at the Underhill Rd junction ( an accident hot spot ) and also the Upland Rd junction should be consulted on . Southwark and local councillors are you listening ?

If the school is free to book sports pitches on Peckham Rye Common and Peckham Rye Park Extension as edhistory says ,what's the problem ? Apart from the school being built on too small a site .

Given that people who live there are saying that the road doesn't seem busy are we quite sure that the following is correct ? " The Police conducted a traffic survey over a two week period. It found 15,000 vehicles a week using the lower southern section of Melbourne Grove (East Dulwich Grove to Lordship Lane) or just over 2,000 vehicles per day on average." No confusion with the northern end ? I've no idea what would be considered normal or high . Clearly such info will become important if we've got residents wanting their streets closed and councillors who are attempting to balance " mobility " against pleasant places to live . I wonder what that measure is ? What were the vehicle numbers that justified the closure of Friern Rd ? A much busier route I imagine ( and obviously the traffic didn't evaporate but shifted elsewhere to torment others ) but would be interesting to know this or any other streets that might be comparable . Presumably the figures are available ,otherwise the police wouldn't have been surprised .

Thanks MarkT . Very clear .

" We have a number of such closures - Friern Road, Gilkes Crescent that come to mind. I don't recall lots of people seeking them to be removed. People adapt. These streets returned to being properly residential." actually I'd love to have these 2 reopened ,it drives me bonkers ( still after all the years since Gilkes was closed ) having routes abruptly terminated . I've not adapted ,just seethed . And my seething will increase the more roads /streets this happens to . People might tolerate one or two closures but I suspect they might start organising if it's going to become a common theme . Particularly as Southwark seems to lack any co ordinating planning/strategy over such things .The impact of the Townley Rd plan on Calton Ave is an example .

d.b said "Problem with this whole issue is that MG is not just a residential road, it is important for access to several other roads" JamesB replied "Hi d.b., Melbourne Grove is meant to be just a residential road" ??? do you mean it's meant to be a road without traffic ? presumably " We have a number of such closures - Friern Road, Gilkes Crescent that come to mind. I don't recall lots of people seeking them to be removed. People adapt. These streets returned to being properly residential" you do . what on earth are you talking about ? Who meant these roads to be " properly residential " ? Should all our streets be " properly residential " ? Who will decide which become blocked off and which don't ?

James - it's probably Penguin68 you meant to ask about satnavs .

Fair point about buses along East Dulwich Grove ,east - west . I think many /all would agree that the 37 needs improving . Is the poor provision here partly linked to Dulwich estate and not wanting buses in its' environs ? That's what I remember being told growing up in the area ?

From the other thread messageRe: Closure of Melbourne Grove to through traffic new Posted by LalKJ Yesterday, 10:58PM Hi Mockingbird Just to clarify - full speed checks were done by the police with the taping across the road, for over a week. What the residents did refuse to do is stand on the road themselves with speed cameras. This was discussed with a couple of the Councillors at the time it was mooted as there has been previous aggression towards people wielding speed cameras, and they advised that it might not be the best thing to do, or be necessary as the police had taken more accurate data over a wider period of time. Options: Reply To This Message?Quote This Message?Reply via Private Message (PM)?Follow This Thread?Report This Message messageRe: Closure of Melbourne Grove to through traffic new Posted by LalKJ Yesterday, 11:01PM Sorry for the follow up - also to clarify the ?5-10k was not allocated for a trial of a barrier but for a feasibility study - which, from what I can gather, will focus on the effects of displacement of any traffic if a barrier were erected.

Throwing money at a trial ? Petition + deputation = ? 5/1000 for a " trial " ? as mockingbird says we can all have a go for any old scheme . - shocking Lack of consultation and following procedure - shocking No one able to provide answers - shocking Al deserve a different adjective ,but I'm too gob smacked to find one .

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1426742,1536588,page=31#msg-1536588 page 31 and onwards on the ".Consultation on ?improving? the junction of East Dulwich Grove, Townley Road and Green Dale" thread

Bawdy -nan you're absolutely right . I hope the talk of catchment areas doesn't distract from your points .