former East Dulwich councillor - how can I help?

[rch]

Groan.

Bear in mind that the request of the Melbourne Grove Traffic Action Group's 150 signature petition was specifically to request a barrier and more double yellow lines. And now the highway engineers have rejected the barrier and the residents consultation has rejected the double yellow lines - even you are saying that you fought against MGTAG's petition requests.

The point behind our 300 signature petition was that we want to liaise with council engineers on identifying solutions to address the actual genuine problems on Melbourne Grove, not go around in circles wasting public money on another naff pre-determined consultation.

Yet, you are STILL awarding CGS funds to a group with less signatures (even though council policy states that petitions have to have 250 signatures in order to qualify for community council discussions) to install speed humps to fix problems that don't exist, publicly announcing that the council will consult with them while ignoring the petition with the most signatures (i.e. my CGS bid was refused).

This will be the THIRD speed hump traffic consultation in ten years... and there are still no proposals to address the actual issues. So even if the ?20k gets approved on the third consultation and spent on speed humps, we're still going to have the same problems...

[first mate]

Beyond exasperating.

[James Barber]

Hi Abe_froeman,

I'm unable to guarantee that because Labour Southwark have removed the decision making for such things away from ward councillors and given it to a single Labour councillor called Ian Wingfield. I will give strong representation to him but he will be influenced by council officers.

But overall I would hope we end up with the same amount of kerb line space for people to park at despite this risk because instead of being an arc minimising kerb line it would be a 90 degree corner which maximises kerb line. I'm afraid I've not done the maths for the overall impact.

[James Barber]

Hi rich,

That is really unfair.

The Melbourne Grove (south) was set- up because they wanted to reduce speeding on their road. Cllr Charlie Smith suggested the best way to achieve that goal might be to close one end. The group didn't come up with that idea. And quite understandably felt they should take advice from a councillor. I think you know this Robin so it doesn't seem very fair to misrepresent them like this.

On Saturday after the Dulwich Community Council I walked you home and we visited this junction and you sounded at the time supportive of this change. So I'm puzzled with your post. It is really difficult if you're going to be so inconsistant.

[rch]

Argh, James. I'm not being inconsistent, I'm saying exactly the same thing that I've been saying for over ten years.

The reason why I was happy to walk home with you via Melbourne was precisely because I wanted to find out what the additional ?15K was being allocated for and to be able to demonstrate to you in situ what the problems on Melbourne actually are, with a view towards liaising with highway engineers to identify viable solutions.

The problem with Melbourne is NOT speeding, it's logistics. Speed humps, barriers, etc, won't help this. This is why we created the second petition in an attempt to generate proposals recommended to address the actual problems within the parameters of the restrictions, not to keep going around in the same circles.

This is why, every time a car drove by, I noted to you that it WASN'T speeding. I was quite happy to stand in the road and talk to you because it's NOT a dangerous speeding situation, which I am well experienced in due to my Community Roadwatch work and previous speed statistic training by police transport officers.

The problem with Melbourne is the narrowness of the road in at least five locations, exacerbated by the residents cars parked on both sides of the road. As residents don't want to decrease parking spaces by creating passing places - which would immediately solve many of the problems - this is why I wanted to speak to an engineer about alternative ideas.

Me and other residents regularly witness road rage incidents and damage to car body work and wing mirrors due to passing cars slowly trying to squeeze by. I often offer to support road rage victims and regularly call 101 or local police to report details of damage that I've witnessed so that victims can claim insurance compensation. But it would be much better to actually solve the problem, not rely on a handful of community minded witnesses.

Logistics is also the main issue with the Melbourne/Chesterfield junction, not speeding. The distance between the corners and the close parking of the cars around the bend creates visibility problems for both pedestrians and approaching cars. Creeping carefully across the road is complicated enough for adults, but it's difficult for those on foot with small children.

Although building out the curve will address the logistics issue, it will reduce parking spaces by approx three spaces, which is why this option was voted against by residents in the 2009 consultation.

So, we have a dilemma across the board of improving safety or losing parking. This is why I keep saying that I want to liaise with an engineer on site (not sitting at a Tooley Street computer terminal looking at Google maps), to see if there are any better creative options. And this is what I tried to communicate to you on Saturday.

FYI, I didn't vote in the 2009 consultation because, as a non-car driving pedestrian, I would love to see a complete reconfiguration of the road, but I also have sympathy with the community.

Because of the geographical distances and poor public transportation in the Dulwich area, I am aware that residents are more dependent on cars, especially for the school runs. This is why I have always disagreed with Southwark's policy to reduce car parking for no practical reason... I actually think that new building developments should include MORE parking where possible - for instance, I think it was insane to reduce proposed parking spaces (which we could have lanscaped with trees) at the new medical centre on the hospital site.

I made this point yet again at Saturday's DCC discussions on the New Southwark Plan "visions" for Dulwich, as I don't find the proposed "vision" to be very visionary at all... but this is another discussion.

[Charlie Smith]

Jim Boy, I am only going to say this for the last time. I have never advocated the introduction of a barrier. As I have told you, I met a group of Melbourne Grove residents some time ago. I gave them a list of possible solutions which included speed humps, extra signage, build outs and finally a barrier. The barrier idea was seized upon by the residents. So hopefully and finally you might get this into that head of yours.

Southwark Council now propose to carry out an informal consultation of this project. The works will proceed if the majority are in favour.

Yours Sincerely

Councillor Charlie Smith

Deputy Mayor of Southwark

East Dulwich Ward Member

[Abe_froeman]

Charlie, where would one be able to find details of the proposed project / works and the consultation please?

[jaywalker]

Dear Deputy Mayor,

Thank you for your post. Please could you advise how I might go about being 'informally consulted'?

If I am not eligible for this consultation (I do not live in Melbourne Grove, but use it frequently), then I would like to record my opposition, as a council tax payer, to money being spent on what is, in the light of my daily use of this street both as a pedestrian and a car driver, an ordinary street with little speeding (council's own survey report).

All streets could no doubt be improved (including the one in which I live). However, there have been severe issues (clearly reported on this site) at specific pinch points in East Dulwich (both road traffic junctions and pavement maintenance). In the light of this, I am surprised (to put it mildly) that Melbourne Grove has risen to such prominence in the council's decision making.

I have seen my council tax rise by 5% this year, and now hear that many thousands of pounds are being spent on Melbourne Grove, when other transport (and indeed social care issues) would seem to me to deserve greater priority.

Regards and best wishes,

Jaywalker

[James Barber]

Hi jaywalker,

85% of the traffic there travels at 24mph or slower. 15% travels faster. The speed limit is 20mph.

When 1 in 6 or 7 vehicles is more than 20% faster than the speed limit I'd call that speeding.

Hi Charlie,

You suggested closing Melbourne Grove. They heard that from a councillor and thought it good advice.

I'm sure you and me both wish this had never arisen. Eitherway I'm sure we'll work to resolve this once and for all.

[ianr]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> 85% of the traffic there travels at 24mph or

> slower. 15% travels faster. The speed limit is 20mph.

> When 1 in 6 or 7 vehicles is more than 20% faster

> than the speed limit I'd call that speeding.

As I wrote in http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1536718,1562542#msg-1562542 on 18 August 2015

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

> Of 55,918 cars in the 2014 sample of free-flowing

> traffic on built-up roads in Great Britain with a 30mph speed limit:

> Average speed: 30 mph

> Proportion exceeding limit: 45%

> Proportion exceeding limit by more than 5 mph: 15%

(see the actual message for more info)

As I wrote in http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,1733950,1734299#msg-1734299 on 30 September, 2016

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

> There are interesting national sample statistics

> on compliance with speed limits in free-flowing

> conditions. Those for 2015 included 20mph limits

> for the first time. "For all vehicle types, 20

> mph roads had the lowest level of speed limit

> compliance in 2015."

> 84% of cars observed were over the 20mph limit.

> https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/free-flow-vehicle-speeds-in-great-britain-2015

Again, see the actual message for links to more source materials. A screengrab of one figure, including a report of 47% of cars exceeding a 20mph limit by at least 5mph in the 2015 national survey sample, is attached.

Melbourne Grove South probably stands out from these only in that it's been the subject of concerted skilled lobbying.

[James Barber]

Hi ianr,

Am I correct in understanding your argument is that close to half of 20mph speed limits are being exceeded so why be bothered locally?

Across East Dulwich my lot have organised efforts to address this. We've had speed humps installed on Melbourne Grove (north), Ashbourne, Chesterfield, Matham instantly come to mind.

[rch]

The logistics of Melbourne Grove are different to Melbourne North, Ashbourne, Chesterfield... Melbourne South has narrower sections which cause passing problems, leading to vehicle damage and road rage incidents. This ironically also acts as a speed calming measure.

Matt Hill's briefing to councillors (reproduced on the other thread) confirmed that the average speed on Melbourne South was 19mph and that full width humps will only reduce the speed by 1mph to 18mph. So the public money you've allocated will only reduce the 15% by an insubstantial amount (or may even make it worse if the boy racers regard the humps as a challenge).

Speeding issues here are so inconsequential that the police won't even waste any more human resources on monitoring - the PC overseeing the Roadwatch scheme even said that she was going to submit a formal enquiry to the council about Melbourne South, but I don't know if she ever did.

This is why we keep saying that highway engineers should look at the genuine problems. On the other hand, in the past assessments, highway engineers have determined that Melbourne South is the best balance it can be given the parameters... which is why we're saying that public resources should be spent on local roads with worse measurable speeding problems, such as Barry Road.

I totally agree with ianr's comment above about concerted skilled lobbying.

[jaywalker]

Thanks ianr, and quite.

Hi James,

I guess the question, as I've reiterated in numerous posts, is one of opportunity cost. ALL roads would benefit from some improvement.

What is the value of the next best improvement for the money being spent on Melbourne Grove? Is it less or more than would be obtained here? Is your argument that speeding on Melbourne Grove is significantly worse than on other streets? If so, what is your data?

I understand that the budget may be hypothecated (as set in advance) for Transport, so one can only compare transport projects; but that does not mean it should just be spent where some improvement can be obtained.

One would have thought that the question of opportunity cost would be at the forefront of decision-making.

btw, I stick religiously to the 20mph limit. As a result I am tailgated everywhere.

PS, went back to the report. "The results of the speed surveys indicate that the mean speeds are near the 20mph speed limit ranging from 18.9 to 20.1mph. The 85% speed ranges from 23.9 to 24.8 mph approximately 4 to 5mph above the speed limit. Traffic flows are relatively low with a maximum two-way peak hour flow of 217 vehicles recorded during the AM peak hour at location 1 which equates to 3.6 vehicles per minute."

Not entirely clear how speeding should be defined. The fastest driver? The average driver? The report appears to find that, on average, users of Melbourne Grove do not even exceed the 20 mph limit. Better then to look comparatively to rank potential projects?

[rch]

Hurrah, jaywalker... you and I posted almost exactly the same point within a minute of each other! So, I'm really pleased to see that someone who I don't even know can independently process the same information.

FYI, I launched the Community Roadwatch sessions with police in East Dulwich and we have identified (with stats and input from the community via the Met Transport Police) a downhill section of Lordship Lane near Milo Road, which engineers are proposing to address with a pedestrian island (the most effective form of speed control which will also provide a crossing point on Lordship between two main bus stops).

Plus there are ongoing sessions on Barry Road (which are attended by Charlie Smith), which is said to have the most significant speeding issues in ED ward... but we can't get any funding to address Barry presumably because everything is being directed towards Melbourne.

[cl]

Charlie, (and james if you know the answer)

I support abe_froeman's request for further details on the consultation please.

What does 'informal' mean exactly? Who is going to be consulted and what is the selection criteria?

If, as you are suggesting, a) a yes/no opinion is sought, and b) whatever the result, that vote is actioned by Southwark, it sounds quite formal to me....

I think we'd all agree this whole process has been poor so far - I hope Southwark will sort it out now and run this consultation properly to ensure people and views from across the spectrum are represented.

Really grateful for some clarification please.

[rch]

p.s. The formula which defines "speeding" means that actual speeding tickets can't be issued within a 20mph zone until it can be proven that the vehicle is travelling over 24mph... but officers tend to wait until a vehicle is at at least 27mph to send a warning letter.

So, technically, stats that indicate that the 15th percentile is speeding means that a small number of drivers are travelling at over 25mph... occasional boy racers make territorial statements by getting higher than that late at night.

As you point out, average speeds on Melbourne are under 20mph and 85% are under the limit where tickets can legally be issued.

So, you can see why so many residents are upset with the proposal to spend ?20,000+ of public money on addressing a minimal issue in a manner which will also restrict emergency vehicles, when there are so many other things that are being wiped out by budget cuts.

Sorry, I'm a technical geek, I'll shut up now...

[Penguin68]

But I think, Robin, you fail to note that Melbourne would be a prime candidate for a CPZ - that wouldn't, of course, address any of the (non) issues identified by a minority (it seems) of residents, but might almost be as good as sealing it off as a private road - once Melbourne falls the knock on will take the rest of the streets on that side of ED station out - the long game here, I would suggest, is to bring ED car owners into line with the rest of Southwark as a revenue generator - allowing local government to tax motorists just as national government does.

If it reduces car ownership that would be all to the good as well.

And with reduced and reducing public transport (176s to be cut back, rail services a joke etc.) that will punish ED for being, well ED and not something else. Hence the support of James and Charlie (though not in concert, there are political positions to be held) for more and more work on the road. It (it's residents) are seen as a weak link. The next death or serious injury on Barry will be a consequence of this fiddling, as attentions are focused on areas where speeding really, really, isn't a problem, but that will be a reasonable sacrifice to achieve a CPZ Southwark, I'm sure you would agree?

[James Barber]

Hi cl,

The consultation would be a leaflet drop with response and online asking question TBC.

Hi jaywalker,

I'm sure many also stick to the 20mph as well. With time hopefully more of you.

I find it odd that no fuss was made to install speed humps along Chesterfield, Ashbourne, Matham, etc that have had slower speeds and less volume and arguably poorer cost benefit than these proposals.

Weirdly Melbourne Grove (south) with more speeding and more traffic volume seems to have hit a raw nerve.

Hi rch,

I am puzzled by your responses. We're not proposing any humps near your home. That the humps will reduce speeds to some degree is indisputable. That a proportion, 15%, are breaking the speed limit by some margin. I think we'd all agree Melbourne GRove is narrow at points.

On this last point what are you suggesting?

That people speed to get through them - so don't place speed humps.

That speed humps wont have an impact - so no problem if we install them and see.

Hi P68,

The 'minority' were a majority of those living on that section of Melbourne Grove. Robin has said they were hood winked. The wording of the petition seemed clear.

The area is experiencing more parking pressures. I've been getting a greater incidence of residents complaining 'they can't park'.

I have done everything I can so far to resist the huge expansion of double yellow lines proposed across the area that will remove significant amounts of parking with no evidence it will reduce crashes.

The new East Dulwich Charter school and new health centre - the planning was granted with the expectation of many staff and users parking in local roads - I spoke against these assumptions and sought to get a planning condition that trades people working on these developments be able to park on the development sites while being constructed.

Public transport. With the new 1 hour bus ticket allowing people to change buses, London Bridge station re build will eventually finish I hope it wont be so long before it's back to being reasonable again.

I don't see political footballs. I'm sure Cllr Smith as well as Cllr Shimell and I myself are completely aligned that TfL should take over the local train services and upgrade them to London Overground standards of operating and investment.

[Penguin68]

James wrote:-

The area is experiencing more parking pressures. I've been getting a greater incidence of residents complaining 'they can't park'.

So is the problem speeding or parking? Reduce parking (as a CPZ would - about 2-3 spaces are lost per 'reasonable' stretch of road once CPZs are introduced) - and speeds will increase as the road de-congests. Mind you - the huge double yellows proposed would decrease parking even more - and reduce potential CPZ revenues as parking slots were lost.

And I would believe the guff about public transport if bus frequency in LL wasn't being reduced (save at rush hour). Changing buses because you have to - as they stop early or don't even appear - is not exactly a bonus, it's a bit of sticking plaster to hide a failing service. Charging more for a failing service would add insult to injury - the one-hour ticket is a get-out to disguise failure.

[jaywalker]

James,

I voted for you, and actually will again (protest against BREXIT etc) and I truly appreciate and am thankful for your accessibility on the forum. I also (from other contexts) realise that answering all these criticisms takes a great deal of time and that the work of councillors is a hiding to nothing.

However, if you make yourself present then the work will continue. At what point in your answer do you answer my question? I am struggling ...

In all honesty, your justification for more money spent on a new Melbourne Grove survey (of the junction with Chesterfield) seems to be sliding all over the place.

If the problem is actually parking (!) - btw, I routinely park in Melbourne because there are actually spaces available that are not in my own street - then perhaps the surveys/improvements should address that? But that would be a great waste of money as parking is much easier in Melbourne than in the surrounding streets.

Are you planning to provide more spaces?

I would like to note at this point that I used to live in Kennington. We went from free parking to CPZ. This was expensive, bureaucratic, and reduced the number of available spaces. PLEASE do not go down that route.

[73jem]

Sorry that jaywalker had a bad experience in Kennington, but my experience of a CPZ which was introduced to an area of Clapham where I used to live was entirely different. Before the scheme it was very difficult to park anywhere convenient, I often had to walk home from an adjoining road. After the scheme was set up I found that there were far more spaces and I could usually park somewhere near my home.

A well designed scheme can make life much easier for residents and I do not understand why so many people are hostile to the idea. with so many cars around surely space has to be rationed to be fair to all.

[Abe_froeman]

Relieving parking pressure is a red herring. What is under consideration for the CGS spend is to rebuild the chesterfield grove junction to appease the MTAG on gheir perceievd speeding issues.

The only thing Southwark knows how to do at junctions is put in an enormous build out surrounded by double yellow lines.

James has sajd on this thread he will not guarantee no new doubke yellows around this junction. So if work goes ahead you can be sure 3 or 4 more parking spacrs will be lost.

I guess this is part of southwarks plan to acheive their stated aim of reducing private car ownership.

[James Barber]

Hi P68,

The problem is speeding. But you raised the risk of CPZ. I responded to you and then you asked whether the problem was speeding or parking.

For clarity the problem reported on Melbourne Grove (south) is speeding by a large group of residents.

Neighbouring street report parking as a problem - I used to get complaints from those neighbouring street about speeding but installed speed humps and now I just get complaints from those streets about lack of parking.

Hi jaywalked,

When areas are created as CPZ they often define exactly where people can park and by so doing, double yellow lines on corners for example, reduce overall parking. Shouldn't be too bureaucratic once in place but depends on how an authority do this to ensure only residents can get permits. And yes CPZ parking permits are used to raise money partly to pay for the initial CPZ set-up but then as a profitable enterprise. Usually space is freed up. The most recent CPZ in Village ward has resulted in much parking spaced freed up.

In Southwark on council estates they charge ?25 per permit - presumably the actual cost, but on public highways ?125.

Hi Abe_froemna,

I agree. I didn't raise it.

[Abe_froeman]

Hi James,. I'm still trying to find details of the proposal that has been approved for Melbourne Grove but can't see anything. Are you or Charlie Smith able to assist at all please?

All I can find is this list which doesn't include Melbourne Grove: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=44143

It does include some rather odd sounding projects for the council to be involved in such as "Posts and Chains" in Dulwich village (which I would think might be the responsibility of Dulwich Estate) and "Bus stop repairs" which I would think TfL should be on the hook for.

Is there a way to find out more about the CGS expenditure Dulwich Community Council approves?

[bargee99]

Are those bike hangers really ?5000 each. That's more than the total value of the bikes in them! They can store 6 bikes each so that is ?830 per bike!!!! Unless of course you are putting high value racing bikes in them which would be stupid. Out of the total East Dulwich funds of approx ?50k we have ?15k spent on 3 bike stores (18 bikes) and another ?10k spent on cycling generally. That's half the total budget spent on cycling. Does anyone else ever get funds nowadays or are cyclists the only successful lobbying group.