Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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.

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.
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.

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to respond to residents requests as we have for all other such roads in the area - and agreed to upgrade the poor out of date traffic calming.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.

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.

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.

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'.

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.

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.

  • 4 months later...

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."

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.

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.".

  • 3 years later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...