Camberwell Grove rail bridge consultation

[edcam]

Definitely not what I said though, is it? Try reading the posts to which you respond.

rendelharris Wrote:

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

>

> Is this for real? Lovely car drivers who all

> stick to the speed limit at all times making those

> awful dangerous cyclists moderate their speed?

> Let's have cars driving in the cycle lanes to

> encourage cyclists to behave!

[edcam]

Quite. They haven't thought this through, have they?

taper Wrote:

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

> Why are Southwark Cyclists supporting a position

> which acts against the interests of cyclists who

> use different routes in that immediate area?

[edcam]

Not so nice for anyone in the surrounding roads though. It would seem that some of those who use CG to cycle don't give a rat's arse for anyone else.

James Barber Wrote:

>

> Hi edcam,

> Camberwell Gove being closed in the middle has

> made it much more attractive and pleasant to cycle

> along - or at least it has for me when I'm huffing

> and puffing southbound homeward bound along it.

[Sally Eva]

I wrote:

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

> "Why do we all need to campaign to keep the roads

> where we live open to people who want to take

> short-cuts down them?

>

> We know that roads that don't take through traffic

> are much much nicer than roads that do. It's

> quieter, the air is cleaner, we can open our

> windows and hear the birds sing. No one disputes

> this and you are not disputing it.

>

> Why is it so wrong to want it? Why, in this

> particular case, are "other road users" wishes

> more important than our own?"

macutd Wrote:

> It's because we all share the same roads. and it's

> selfish to think that yours is just for you.

> we would all like "nicer roads"!!!

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

thanks for this, nice and clear.

The roads belong to the Queen -- it's the Queen's Highway and she graciously delegates management of the roads to her government which delegates it to (in London) TfL and borough councils. It's an offence to obstruct the highway but this how this is dealt with varies. If you take parking, many people like to leave their car outside their house and in quite a lot of places this is freely available -- but there are controls like double yellows, time limits, CPZs etc. And if you want to leave a skip you need a licence.

So, what happens next is a balance of rights -- personal, economic and environmental.

Let's express that as two:

a) the right to drive wherever you like by the route you choose -- the moment we express it we can see it is hugely interfered with -- buses can go places cars can't and cars are allowed to use streets that lorries aren't. Speeds are limited, streets are one-way only etc. This is a mix of personal rights (visiting auntie) and economic rights (tradesmen, deliveries etc)

b) then there are environmental and other personal rights -- cleaner air and quieter streets might be considered environmental but they are also personal (we all like clean air and peace as you say) and economic -- dirty air makes people ill, needs cleaning up etc. Dangerous streets reduce people's personal freedom to walk their children to school or children's access to liberty taking themselves to the library or to school.

So -- going back to the highway -- her Majesty's subjects have conflicting needs, desires, wishes etc -- some of them are compatible (cycling is compatible with clean air and noise reduction) -- people in delivery vans taking short cuts may not be compatible with peace and quiet.

Unless we express our wishes they may not get taken into account. The desire for peace and quiet may not win out over the desire for short-cuts but it's not wrong, selfish or foolish to have it. Going back to your point. No indeed the road is not mine. Neither does it belong to people with four wheels. It belongs (in so far as it does) to all of us. Residents are not necessarily right or wrong, neither are drivers -- as so often it's a bit more complicated than that.

[first mate]

Sally, in short the public highways should be open to use by all within reason. It is therefore reasonable to ask that a major aterial route is useable for those in 4 wheeled vehicles. As an aside, every route would be more pleasant to cycle along if it was closed to all motor traffic but it is hardly the basis for a proper discussion about the future of this main road.

[rendelharris]

So just to give a few examples locally which come to mind, Holly Grove and Highshore Road should be reopened onto Rye Lane, and Rye Lane itself should be reopened at the north end to give access to Peckham High Street? Rye Lane certainly was a major artery before it was made bus and cycle only at the top end. Whatever the rights and wrongs of reopening Camberwell Grove or otherwise, all this nonsense about "public highways which should be open to all," as if the right to drive along a road is somehow inviolate and circumstances and needs never change, is so much blether. So much tosh about Camberwell Grove "always being a major artery" - it was designed and built at a time when the only traffic was horse-drawn carts and carriages, but apparently no consideration should be given to change even though the traffic has changed to delivery lorries and 4x4s on the school run?

[intexasatthe moment]

But Camberwell Grove is straight ,fairly wide , with property set well back from a road lined with mature trees .

It is a direct North South route .To my mind it is more suitable route for traffic than narrower roads with their bends and junctions and houses set closer to the traffic .

[Sally Eva]

"taper Wrote:

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

> See previous post. The closed bridge makes

> Lyndhurst Grove, Lyndhurst Way and Bellenden a lot

> more treacherous for cyclists using those roads.

> Camberwell Grove is fine with the bridge half

> open."

Hi Taper, sorry for the delay.

Our suggested response to the consultation says:

"It is unsafe, and arguably unfair, for improvements to Camberwell Grove, Grove Hill Road, Dog Kennel Hill and Champion Hill to mean pushing traffic to the diversion route along Lyndhurst Grove, Lyndhurst Way, Bellenden Road and Chadwick Road. A permanent bridge closure should be combined with improvements to all the residential roads between Camberwell Grove and Rye Lane. These should ensure through-traffic stays on the main roads and cannot take short-cuts down residential streets. The result will be improved road safety and lowered air pollution across the whole area."

So we have your needs well in mind. It's all here:

https://southwarkcyclists.org.uk/camberwell-grove-bridge-re-opening-draft-consultation-response/

[Nigello]

I agree with intexas - even if a limited amount of traffic were allowed to return it would make it better for the other, smaller, less protected roads. Agreed - fewer motor vehicle movements would be better for all, but only individuals can make that choice. Over to you, drivers and motorcyclist and vespa riders....!

[Abe_froeman]

I think rye lane shoukd be reopened. It is very dangerous for pedestrians in its current format because many cyclists assume they can bomb along as fast as theh like and dont have to think about their route really being on shared space.

[first mate]

CG has long been an important route into and out of this part of town, it is needed. The evidence is the clogging on other roads.

[Charles Notice]

Sally Eva Wrote:

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

> "taper Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > See previous post. The closed bridge makes

> > Lyndhurst Grove, Lyndhurst Way and Bellenden a

> lot

> > more treacherous for cyclists using those roads.

>

> > Camberwell Grove is fine with the bridge half

> > open."

>

> Hi Taper, sorry for the delay.

>

> Our suggested response to the consultation says:

>

> "It is unsafe, and arguably unfair, for

> improvements to Camberwell Grove, Grove Hill Road,

> Dog Kennel Hill and Champion Hill to mean pushing

> traffic to the diversion route along Lyndhurst

> Grove, Lyndhurst Way, Bellenden Road and Chadwick

> Road. A permanent bridge closure should be

> combined with improvements to all the residential

> roads between Camberwell Grove and Rye Lane. These

> should ensure through-traffic stays on the main

> roads and cannot take short-cuts down residential

> streets. The result will be improved road safety

> and lowered air pollution across the whole area."

>

> So we have your needs well in mind. It's all

> here:

>

> https://southwarkcyclists.org.uk/camberwell-grove-

> bridge-re-opening-draft-consultation-response/

If you are a resident on the above streets how do the authorities decide if you are resident traffic or though traffic, to use your words, to be able to use these roads to reach home?

If I live in Linwood Close for example I have to be through traffic using Grove Park and Chadwick Road to reach it not including all the other roads I have to pass through.

Barriers at every end of the streets with fob entry, no doubt costing residents more.

All roads are through roads going somewhere.

[Sally Eva]

Charles Notice Wrote:

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

>

> All roads are through roads going somewhere"

With respect, that is plainly not true. We can all think of roads which are not through roads. There are several in the toast rack. Lots of people are lucky enough to live in roads which allow them to access their own home but do not lead through to anywhere else.

[Charles Notice]

How do they get to these roads?

[rendelharris]

None of the objections on here are insuperable if traffic control measures were to be introduced on other roads (and no they don't have to be fob controlled gates, Charles - not sure those pertain anywhere on public roads, certainly never seen that in Southwark) to keep through traffic to main, primarily non-residential roads (in this case Peckham High Street, Denmark Hill, Grove Vale, DKH and East Dulwich Road).

What it boils down to is whether you see residential roads as places for people to live peacefully and healthily or conveyors for motor traffic which happen to have houses on the edge.

[rendelharris]

Charles Notice Wrote:

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

> How do they get to these roads?

There are plenty of roads - for example the above mentioned Holly Grove and Highshore Road - that are blocked to through traffic but easily accessible for residents. In most of the toastrack roads - Talfourd, Bushey Hill, Crofton etc - a block on the south end would still allow resident access while forcing ratrunners to remain on Peckham Road.

[taper]

This is either naive or disingenuous. The choice in the consultation is to open the bridge or keep it closed. Southwark Cyclists are arguing to keep it closed. Traffic calming measures elsewhere are not in scope.

[rupert james]

What if toastrack residents wanted to access McNiel Road?

They would have to use Peckham Road or does the south end have a barrier they can open and shut?

[rendelharris]

taper Wrote:

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

> This is either naive or disingenuous. The choice

> in the consultation is to open the bridge or keep

> it closed. Southwark Cyclists are arguing to keep

> it closed. Traffic calming measures elsewhere are

> not in scope.

I don't speak for Southwark Cyclists but as I understood from Sally's posts they are in favour of keeping the bridge closed as a first step to wider traffic calming measures.

ETA I was being neither naive nor disingenuous, I was replying to a question from Charles Notice asking how residents would access closed off roads.

[rendelharris]

rupert james Wrote:

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

> What if toastrack residents wanted to access

> McNiel Road?

>

> They would have to use Peckham Road or does the

> south end have a barrier?

Yes, they would have to go out and round the block in exchange for having their road rendered virtually traffic free. That would be a matter of personal choice, obviously; personally, living on Copleston Road and having to go round the block to get to Lordship Lane, rather than driving straight out onto Grove Vale, I'm delighted with the tradeoff in terms of traffic calming.

ETA in reply to your edit, I guess there could be an openable barrier but not sure how practical that would be in terms of cost or logistics. As I said, if I lived there I'd be more than happy to have an extra couple of minutes added to certain journeys if the tradeoff was a 90% traffic reduction.

[nxjen]

As the term ?non-residential road? is being used, it might be useful to define what is meant. The roads described here as ?non-residential? have many residents living on them, probably at the same density as other roads. What also is the criteria for describing them ?primarily? non residential.

[rendelharris]

That would have to be something decided on a case by case basis, I'd say. Somewhere like Dog Kennel Hill, with virtually no houses facing onto the road and estates for which the road is not the primary frontage, would surely qualify? Denmark Hill, at least up to the top of Ruskin Park, is nearly all shops and hospital premises...width of road would be just as important, with the ability to handle large traffic volumes (which Camberwell Grove arguably has at the bottom but not at the top).

Of course it would be a contentious process deciding which roads were allocated "resident cars only" status (for that would be effectively what they would be) and, as this discussion shows, there would be much anger and resentment from those who didn't get it. But one feels it's a discussion worth having, rather than resigning oneself to every residential area being a free-for-all in terms of motor vehicle access.

[Penguin68]

Of course it would be a contentious process deciding which roads were allocated "resident cars only" status (for that would be effectively what they would be) and, as this discussion shows, there would be much anger and resentment from those who didn't get it. But one feels it's a discussion worth having, rather than resigning oneself to every residential area being a free-for-all in terms of motor vehicle access.

And of course once a 'main' road was blocked by road works or whatever (as for instance Underhill and Barry both have been during this year alone) - the sealing off of 'residential' roads save for the lucky few would lead to complete gridlock, with individuals unable to get to their own homes because they are blocked from passing others'.

If people want to live in cul-de-sacs they should buy houses in them. Not retro-fit cul-de-sacs around them.

[nxjen]

?Denmark Hill, at least up to the top of Ruskin Park, is nearly all shops and hospital premises...?

And Ruskin Park to Herne Hill?

[rendelharris]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> And of course once a 'main' road was blocked by

> road works or whatever (as for instance Underhill

> and Barry both have been during this year alone) -

> the sealing off of 'residential' roads save for

> the lucky few would lead to complete gridlock,

> with individuals unable to get to their own homes

> because they are blocked from passing others'.

>

> If people want to live in cul-de-sacs they should

> buy houses in them. Not retro-fit cul-de-sacs

> around them.

Would it be totally impossible to design a barrier which could be removed as necessary for diversions?

So if people have houses or flats that are not in cul-de-sacs they have no right to campaign for their streets to be cleaner, quieter and safer? Gotcha.