Closure of Melbourne Grove to through traffic - new petition

[Earl Aelfheah]

Well quite. Let's also hope that there is a more strategic approach to identifying investment priorities going forward, to ensure that accident hotspots are being tackled.

[Abe_froeman]

I think the report found that there was no accident hotspot on Melbourne Grove and that traffic was generally safe and obedient.

[BrandNewGuy]

Indeed. Just shows what noisy people can get. Ridiculous.

[first mate]

I am not aware of MG as an accident hotspot at all. It does seem an utter waste of resources.

To what extent is the path to be widened? By hook or by crook the aim is to close this road off to traffic and the latest excuse is that peopel with buggies cannot get by. I cannot help but note Councillor Barber's comment that any path widening is to aid people walking with buggies. There is no mention of the elderly or disabled. For me this indicates whose interests are paramount for our local rep. Survival of the fittest and loudest.

[Abe_froeman]

Widening the pavements around the trees on Melbourne Grove will also mean losing a few parking spaces, putting pressure on parking and possibly leading to calls for a CPZ, something I know Southwark are loathe to implement.

[d.b]

There are two trees that cause difficulty for buggies, wheelchairs, people pulling suitcases to the station etc. They are both on the same side of the road. It's really not that hard to cross the road if getting past is a problem for you.

[first mate]

Precisely, we all know the real agenda here, fully supported by James Barber.

[James Barber]

Hi Abe-froeman,

Yes generally - but still a significant number speed.

The alternative to kerb buildouts was copping these mature trees down. We wanted to avoid this.

This stretch of road is the busiest section or road in SE22 without traffic effective traffic calming. Residents in lots of other roads have had this with less speeding and less volume of traffic.

Hi d.b.,

TO make such a crossing we'd need to put extra dropped kerbs. We'd need to ensure people didn't park in front of such dropped kerbs with double yellow lines. Same amount of parking would be lost and we'd inconvenience people walking along the road.

Hi first mate,

You've watched too many dodgy movies. No councillor is talking about closing this road. This idea was floated early on but we've all listened to resident feedback and it is not on the agenda.

I and 5 other councillors agreed we needed to respond to residents requests as we have for all other such roads in the area - and agreed to upgrade the poor out of date traffic calming. Not sure why we should penalise these residents for being on the last section of such road.

The next step is to find a way to clam the northern section of Melbourne Grove.

[BrandNewGuy]

The northern section already is calm, thanks to parking both sides which does not allow two lanes of traffic to flow. Hence queues building up in EDG. It's hard to think that only recently this was a bus route with no complaints. Please don't spend any money on it.

[Reg Smeeton]

Never mind traffic-calming, when Jarvis Road becomes a Charter school entrance the north section of Melbourne Rd will probably be in near-constant gridlock during school hours.

[James Barber]

Indeed Reg.

First priority is to ensure the new schools entrance is on East Dulwich gRove OR only temporarily via Jarvis Road/Melbourne Grove until the school building is complete.

Then we need to sort out Melbourne Grove 9north) rush hour congestion.

[Earl Aelfheah]

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

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

> Indeed. Just shows what noisy people can get.

> Ridiculous.

Tt may not have been clear, but this was my point (not that Melbourne Grove was a hotspot, quite the opposite). My hope is that in future, there will be a more strategic approach to prioritising road changes, which will target hotspots, rather than simply responding to 'he who shouts loudest'.

[first mate]

James Barber Wrote:

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

>

>

> Hi first mate,

> You've watched too many dodgy movies. No

> councillor is talking about closing this road.

> This idea was floated early on but we've all

> listened to resident feedback and it is not on the

> agenda.

> I and 5 other councillors agreed we needed to

> respond to residents requests as we have for all

> other such roads in the area - and agreed to

> upgrade the poor out of date traffic calming. Not

> sure why we should penalise these residents for

> being on the last section of such road.

>

> The next step is to find a way to clam the

> northern section of Melbourne Grove.

James, I'm slightly concerned that you would even pretend to know anything about my viewing habits...... Also, I don't know of any movies, dodgy or otherwise, that star a local councillor intent on closing a residential street.

[BrandNewGuy]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Then we need to sort out Melbourne Grove 9north)

> rush hour congestion.

Wait a minute, one minute you want to calm it, now you want to 'sort out' the congestion? Which one is it? This is a recipe for spending money on every road that doesn't have some notional ideal speed. Madness. Let's not spend the shrinking council cashpile on stuff that doesn't need doing.

[spider69]

Common sense is not a word Southwark or some Cllrs can relate very easily relate to.

[jaywalker]

James, are you truly saying that you think this expenditure is optimal given the opportunity cost? You cannot think of ANYTHING in our borough or ward that would merit this expenditure more?

[spider69]

Only if a bike is involved

[Abe_froeman]

So, it turns out these speed humps probably won't reduce the top speed of vehicles as they accelerate in between them but they will generate a lot more pollution in Melbourne Grove and it seems that such pollution causes a significant number of deaths.

Oh dear.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/01/speed-bumps-could-removed-cut-traffic-pollution-save-lives/

"The Imperial study found that in one north London street with a speed limit of 20mph and fitted with road humps, a petrol driven car produced 64 per cent more Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) than in a similar 20mph street fitted with road cushions. It also produced 47 per cent more Particulate Matter (PM) and nearly 60 per cent more Carbon Monoxide (CO2) emissions."

[James Barber]

They recommend average speed camera enforcement.

If that was a real option allowed by government regulations and the London Camera Partnership I'm sure those would be suggested instead.

Looking at the NICE evidence included as part of the NICE consultation no allowance for variations in legal frameworks appears to have been considered or crash stats impact.

[Earl Aelfheah]

The contrast was even more pronounced when it came to a car using diesel.

"This produced 98 per cent more NO2 when driven over humps rather than cushions, along with 64 per cent more CO2 and 47 per cent more PM.".

[Abe_froeman]

Well. They got what they wanted.

[first mate]

They are objecting to it on Goodrich why not here?

[h3+]

Are average speed cameras not allowed? Thats what's really needed on many roads such as East Dulwich Road, East Dulwich Grove, Crystal Palace Road and Barry Road