Closure of Melbourne Grove to through traffic - new petition

[Charles Notice]

Does feeding egos have any part

[James Barber]

I will try and get a copy of draft Terms of Reference and share hear.

After having a useful debate with some residents last night. I'm really not clear closing Melbourne Grove southern part close to East Dulwich Grove would work.

Sending residents of local streets via Matham Grove and the horrible junction it has with Lordship Lane would make sense.

But as I've said before until we have a feasibility of the possible options and consequences I've yet to make my mind up.

[richard tudor]

Cllr Barber wrote

"After having a useful debate with some residents last night. I'm really not clear closing Melbourne Grove southern part close to East Dulwich Grove would work".

Why did you back it in the first place then?

[James Barber]

Hi richard tudor,

I've always said it sounded like a good idea from Cllr Charlie Smith. That I would listen to further evidence before making up my mind and I still say that. Should the southern end be closure be proposed, expensive buildouts, replacing the current speed cushions. But to me doing nothing wouldn't be an acceptable answer.

The evidence on this thread hadn't had that effect.

[Andrew1011]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> I've always said it sounded like a good idea from

> Cllr Charlie Smith.

My understanding is that Cllr Charlie Smith gave a list of traffic calming possibilities of which a road closing barrier could be just one potential option. I also understand that when hearing of that possibility it was quickly taken up by those presenting the 'petition' as the only acceptable option, possibly encouraged in that by you. Hence you saying: 'If I lived on Melbourne Grove I'd want it to be closed off'. So it seems you may be selectively quoting Cllr Smith and possibly in a context that suits you.

You've alleged that I've taken that quote from you out of context but you've so far failed to say what the full context is, especially for the benefit of those of your constituents who didn't see the original newspaper article, and how else you should have been additionally quoted to show the full and correct context.

Over to you...

[James Barber]

Latest crash data show two crashes Melbourne Grove / Ashbourne during 2014. www.crashmap.co.uk well worth a look at the area in general.

[Mugglesworth]

With thanks to Jenny1, Southwark seems well aware of the traffic accidents on MG. From the report she posted:

"Recorded road traffic accidents ? 2 reported collisions in last 3 years, 2 slight casualties."

[Abe_froeman]

That crash website is jolly interesting.

It seems to show only two incidents in Melbourne Grove from '05 to 2014 compared with 5 in North Cross Road, 3 in Ashbourne Grove, and too many to count on the B219 (Barry Road). Maybe these accident black spot rat runs should also be closed off with a barrier before anyone else is hurt?

Incidentally, Friern Road, closed off by a barrier of the sort proposed for Mebourne Grove, has had ten crashes in the same period.

[Charles Notice]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Latest crash data show two crashes Melbourne Grove

> / Ashbourne during 2014. www.crashmap.co.uk well

> worth a look at the area in general.

Why can you not admit you have got it all wrong.

Figures, figures figures why not just pure common sense

[Bobby P]

Well I welcome James' revised view on the barrier, and hope that evidence-based policy making prevails rather than the other way round.

I disagree with James' very telling mantra above that "doing nothing wouldn't be an acceptable answer" - unfortunately this mission statement by many a politician tends to cause more harm than good. Where there aren't discernible problems beyond the base level of statistical noise (and the fact that "accidents happen" no matter what you do), the need to interfere with a grand gesture and thus create other problems which didn't exist before is a pathology I have little sympathy with, and which our elected representatives suffer from in abundance.

I actually witnessed one of the two accidents listed at junction of Ashbourne/Melbourne last year, which involved a motorcycle and car. Not an issue of speeding, more an emergence from junction not seeing the bike. As others have noted, plenty of local roads, with and without barriers, have had considerably more accidents than Melbourne.

[EDAus]

The issue with the junction of Ashbourne Grove and Melbourne Grove is visibility - cars park so close to the corner that it is difficult to exit safely. My understanding is that residents of Melbourne Grove have fought against the yellow lines being expanded due to the reduction in parking spaces.

The junction of Ashbourne Grove and Lordship is a hot spot for small accidents due to the parking spaces and banks etc.

[James Barber]

Hi Charles notice,

I thought I had. With the necessary caveat that I've not made a final decision as I've not had all the facts.

Hi EDAus,

Tricky. increased visibility often results in greater speeding. Catch-22. Full humps positioned better than current ones could help.

[rch]

It's useful to see local residents and even an eye witness confirming the genuine problem (as opposed to "perceived") at the junction of Ashbourne and Melbourne.

Build-outs on the corners of Ashbourne would increase visibility without opening the road to speeding, while making the crossing easier for pedestrians without obstructing cyclists (build-outs are usually aligned with the line of parked cars) at a cost of approx ?15K as opposed to ?30K for a barrier (not including the already ?10K allocated for someone to think about it), and approx ?45K if all cushions are upgraded to humps.

The current cushions are positioned in line with APCO and highway technical policies, so even an upgrade to full width humps wouldn't change much of anything (and wouldn't even address the actual problems).

Officers briefing to ward councillors clearly states that:- "Officers' view is that replacement of sets of cushions with new full width humps is not likely to have a significant impact on vehicle speeds."

The officers' briefing also states the new TfL policy on implementing road humps... in this case, TfL would almost certainly refuse permission as full width humps would affect the only practical bus diversion route:-

"It also should be noted that TfL issued this guidance in respect to the use of funding: ?Road humps: given the Mayor?s position on these, boroughs should exhaust all other options before considering the use of vertical deflections such as road humps and speed cushions. If a borough considers such measures to be the only viable option then a further discussion may be needed with TfL on their acceptability.?

[rch]

The officers' briefing to councillors also gives a clear indication regarding the almost certain outcome of a barrier feasibility study:-

"Officers would not recommend any form of restricted entry or closure on the public highway unless the there were special circumstances. Any such proposal needs detailed consideration given the likely impact on the wider highway network."

So, considering that a barrier won't actually solve the actual problems observed by residents and eyewitnesses and would almost certainly displace local traffic, then one really has to question the decision of allocating ?10K to regurgitate what is already in the existing officers' report...

[intexasatthe moment]

Link ,again ,to petition asking for

"

We the undersigned don't want Melbourne Grove South blocked off by a barrier. We want joined-up thinking to make all our roads safer for everyone.

We want the whole community - young and old, drivers, pedestrians and cyclists - to be able to use our streets easily and safely. As residents we want the emergency services to have rapid access to our roads when we need their help.

We believe the best way to get safer shared streets for everyone is to call on Southwark Council to produce a comprehensive traffic management study to include all roads in the Grove Vale/Lordship Lane, East Dulwich Grove, Townley Road Triangle. "

https://www.change.org/p/southwark-council-no-barrier-for-melbourne-grove

[Newton]

@rch: if I understand you correctly, you're saying that Melbourne Grove would be considered a primary diversionary road for 40/176/185? And, if that's the case, they're likely to object to pretty much any measure we propose? e.g. Full-with bumps, the barrier proposal, one way &c?

(Not that I see how you could possibly run those buses both ways down that street.)

[James Barber]

Hi rch,

Officers also told us a pedestrian crossing outside Somerfield/Coop wasn't possible. But in reflection I'd need some convincing that closure close to EDG would be practical. Have asked for Terms of Reference and hope they can be largely aligned to this later petition.

I've not heard of any formal diversionary routes for buses being in place. So I don't think that an argument. Buses could be diverted down Barry road/East Dulwich Road in the extreme example of Lordship Lane being totally blocked. I think the most compelling argument is avoiding sending lot of residents down Matham Grove and the horrid right turn onto Lordship Lane to then access their street.

[rch]

I'm trying to find the photo of the bus diversion down Melbourne that I took a couple of years ago, it was quite amusing. I think it would mostly be the 37 that would be diverted, the only other route for the 37 would be Townley but that would cut out several bus stops.

I think emergency services would object as well (we're in the process of liaising with police) and officer advice is clear:-

"Officers would not recommend any form of restricted entry or closure on the public highway unless the there were special circumstances. Any such proposal needs detailed consideration given the likely impact on the wider highway network."

I'm glad to hear that you're reconsidering, James, as it would make our lives a nightmare.

We did a consultation on a Master Plan in Village ward back in 2008, which had major support and would have helped the flow of traffic while creating calming measures, but that got undermined by political manoeuvres at the time. Everything is just so fragmented in local government... which causes so much money to be wasted.

[rch]

Attached is the photo of the bus diversion down Melbourne by Tell Grove, dated July 8, 2012. Just in case anyone is doubting that TfL uses Melbourne South for bus diversions...

[1921]

I am a local Resident but was not aware there was a meeting this week to discuss the barrier. How are these meetings notified to the public, I live on Ashbourne Grove and only found out about the ridiculous idea of a barrier from another resident.

I am not a fan of most of the road changes that are being made in the local area. We all choose to live in London, cities have cars, Fact. The barrier is probably the most ludicrous suggestion in a long while!

When Lordship lane is closed to traffic, what would the proposed route be for traffic be to enable cars to get back to Goose Green Roundabout? They can't be diverted the to the other side as their is a no right turn at the end of Crystal Palace Road?

[rch]

I don't think that there have been any formal meetings, it's all been sprung out of the blue as a result of a deputation made at the last Community Council meeting in June.

Have you signed the No Barrier petition yet?? You can sign it online here:-

https://www.change.org/p/southwark-council-no-barrier-for-melbourne-grove

There's lots of paper petitions floating around as well, with the same wording, I think there's going to be some Ashbourne door-knocking.

[1921]

Thanks, I have signed the petition, nobody has knocked on my door as yet! I will keep you posted, it is all a bit cloak and dagger!

[rch]

It's all a bit lowkey because of the holidays, it will probably ramp up after the weekend. I reckon we've got about 100 signatures now, between the online petition and various bits of paper, and that's just the beginning.

[hopskip]

1921 Wrote:

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

> Thanks, I have signed the petition, nobody has

> knocked on my door as yet! I will keep you posted,

> it is all a bit cloak and dagger!

Not cloak and dagger but the original deputation pushed for a single option. Because our Cllrs did not immediately suggest that there could be better and alternative solutions, we have a divided community. That should be stopped.

Well done to the original deputation for the motivation but you have been misled by focusing on a barrier and not calming measures that achieve a better result for all.

I have signed the petition because it is a more balanced position than that put forward by the deputation for a barrier. I was also concerned with the proposed no right hand turn ban for Townley Road and we certainly considered our fellow residents on Melbourne during that consultation as MG would have been heavily impacted if that had gone ahead.

Well done to those of you now taking the initiative to seek a solution for all and advancing this alternative petition.

[James Barber]

Hi hopskip,

I don;'t think you;'re correct.

Melbourne Grove residents originally asked for full width road humps to replace the current ones that can be ignored.

A fellow East Dulwich councillor suggested to them several options including closing the road at the northern end.

The residents then went door to door on Melbourne Grove and obtained a majority of residents on their road agreeing. They attended a Dulwich community Council asking for it to be closed immediately. Councillors agreed to fund a small study into options and consequences. The Terms of Reference for that study have not yet been agreed - this is likely in September/October. I'd anticipate the study reporting back early in the new year. councillors will then decide how to proceed. Most potential solutions would require a public consultation. Replacing the current road humps with full width I don't believe would legally require a consultation. If we decide on an option/s requiring a public consultation then Id anticipate that being late Spring 2016 for a decision June/July 2016 for implementation of whatever is agreed after the consultation in about 13+ months time.

hope this helps.