Camberwell Grove rail bridge consultation

[Earl Aelfheah]

nxjen Wrote:

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

> I find it very bizarre that residents on a street

> are even able to request that their road is closed

> permanently to through traffic. See also Melbourne

> Grove.

This. If every street was given control of whether or not 'their' road should be open to traffic, then we'd have to ban cars from London entirely. It's the worst kind of nimbyism. The Council should make some strategic decisions based on what's in the wider interest of all their constituents. Not just cow tow to those with the loudest voices. Currently, there is a disproportionate amount of consideration given to people with clear, vested interests.

[DulwichFox]

There are far too many 'No Entry' .. 'One Way Streets' .. 'No Right Turns' ..

Congestion caused by vehicles driving around and around lost in a Maze of restrictions.

DulwichFox

[nxjen]

If Camberwell Grove is permanently closed and part of the public highway becomes inaccessible to many road users, will Southwark Council still be responsible for maintenance, road sweeping and lighting?

[edcam]

Yes, because the road will still be a public highway, albeit only partly accessible. Let's hope it doesn't come to that though.

nxjen Wrote:

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

> If Camberwell Grove is permanently closed and part

> of the public highway becomes inaccessible to many

> road users, will Southwark Council still be

> responsible for maintenance, road sweeping and

> lighting?

[Jacqui5254]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> nxjen Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I find it very bizarre that residents on a

> street

> > are even able to request that their road is

> closed

> > permanently to through traffic. See also

> Melbourne

> > Grove.

>

>

> This. If every street was given control of whether

> or not 'their' road should be open to traffic,

> then we'd have to ban cars from London entirely.

> It's the worst kind of nimbyism. The Council

> should make some strategic decisions based on

> what's in the wider interest of all their

> constituents. Not just cow tow to those with the

> loudest voices. Currently, there is a

> disproportionate amount of consideration given to

> people with clear, vested interests.

This.

Totally agree, rahrahrah and nxjen.

[spider69]

As this is a consultation just how wide have the consultation documents been distributed?

Camberwell Grove I suspect would have been fully covered. How about the rest of the area.

Why are there no local notices advertising this consultation.

Is this another Southwark consultation based on % returns when most people will not be aware?

It is a main road artery and should be opened to all traffic.

[wulfhound]

We all have to drive along roads that are residential in order to get somewhere

We all indeed do (.. aside from the 60% of Brunswick households who don't have a vehicle at all, and some living in the households which do).

This. If every street was given control of whether or not 'their' road should be open to traffic, then we'd have to ban cars from London entirely. It's the worst kind of nimbyism.

So just to be clear, we mostly agree that traffic is undesirable (even those who claim not to mind it aren't exactly queueing up to encourage more on their own road), and yet most people are unwilling to cut back on contributing to said problem, or to support measures encouraging or compelling others to cut back?

It's like complaining about the amount of litter on the street yet being unwilling to inconvenience yourself slightly to put your own rubbish in a bin.

[Nigello]

Is this at all to do with the bridge at Denmark Hill station? Would not the reopening of that bridge help traffic move more smoothly and efficiently? (I do not have a car, scooter, bike or cycle.)

[dan b]

The link for people to state their views to Southwark in the consultation (which closes on30 October) is https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/camberwell-grove-bridge/

Worth noting the traffic flow studies that show Lyndhurst Way and Bellenden Road are getting another 2,000 to 3,000 vehicles per day as a result of the closure...

[Abe_froeman]

Some interesting analysis here:

https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/camberwell-grove-bridge-closure-road-rage-traffic-delays-lot-waiting-go/

[edcam]

So the best solution here is to reopen the Grove, so that the traffic burden is shared. The number of people in the area who own cars is irrelevant here.

wulfhound Wrote:

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

> So just to be clear, we mostly agree that traffic

> is undesirable (even those who claim not to mind

> it aren't exactly queueing up to encourage more on

> their own road), and yet most people are unwilling

> to cut back on contributing to said problem, or to

> support measures encouraging or compelling others

> to cut back?

>

> It's like complaining about the amount of litter

> on the street yet being unwilling to inconvenience

> yourself slightly to put your own rubbish in a

> bin.

[intexasatthe moment]

"and yet most people are unwilling

> to cut back on contributing to said problem, or to

> support measures encouraging or compelling others

> to cut back?"

What is the above based on ? Sorry if I've missed it . What are the measures that I'm not supporting ?

[wulfhound]

What is the above based on ? Sorry if I've missed it . What are the measures that I'm not supporting ?

You personally? I've literally no idea what you as an individual do or don't support. More a general sense that anything which might curtail free movement of cars & cheap, convenient parking is frowned upon by many here - despite widespread frustration with the amount of traffic, poor air quality etc.

[Abe_froeman]

Having cars queue up on a few unfortunate streets to benefit the noisier (often wealthier) inhabitants of neighbouring streets doesnt help stop pollution or car use, it just amplifies it elsewhere.

It's why thinking like "If I lived on Melbourne Grove I would want a barrier" is so antisocial. It is for the good of a few at the expense of the many.

Banning traffic is one thing, banning traffic only outside mutli million pound mansions something quite different.

[Sally Eva]

Abe certainly makes a fair point. Southwark cyclists have always believed that area wide traffic planning is the way to go. We want to quieten roads, reduce air and noise pollution and make streets safer for residents generally rather than just "outside the mansions of the rich".

I'm afraid we do favour keeping Camberwell Grove closed even though it's got big houses on it but we would want to spread those good things to people in smaller houses and even those in flats.

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

[Abe_froeman]

That's a disingenuous and cynical interpretation of my words to support your agenda and it dies your cause no favour.

[Abe_froeman]

I suppose it is helpful in one way, though, in that it puts residents of the streets with traffic jams imposed on them on notice that the cycling lobby are going to be responding en masse with the same resposne.

So.if actual residents want to protect their homes against the interest of those passing through on bikes, they must participate in the consultation.

[rendelharris]

Abe, you can't accuse others of "cynical and disingenuous interpretation" and then do it yourself! Sally quite clearly stated that SC are in favour of the continued closure of Camberwell Grove as part of wider measures to remove traffic from the whole residential area.

[Abe_froeman]

Ok, sorry Sally

I do still feel the purpose of this consultation is being hijacked. In my view the only consideration here should be whether the bridge closure adversely affects residents living in the vicinity of the bridge .

Hopefully southwark will disregard responses from people with a postcode outside the immediate area so that the convenience of road users, of any sort, doesnt end up taking priority over the people who have to put up with the consequences.

[alex_b]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> In my view the only

> consideration here should be whether the bridge

> closure adversely affects residents living in the

> vicinity of the bridge .

>

> Hopefully southwark will disregard responses from

> people with a postcode outside the immediate area

> so that the convenience of road users, of any

> sort, doesnt end up taking priority over the

> people who have to put up with the consequences.

Does your definition of "vicinity of the bridge" include those of us around Bellenden Road who have suffered a huge rise in traffic since the closure?

[James Barber]

The latest is that Southwark Council has allocated ?15k for bridge strengthening which would allow vehicles single lane up to 3 tonnes - partial reopening of the road for motor vehicles. That weekend train line closures had been booked but due to operational reasons Network Rail have had to cancel these closures. My guess would be they'll attempt to organise this in the new year.

To have un restricted access would cost ?1M of bridge strengthening and extensive train line closures with bus replacement services - I'm not clear how many weekend train embargoes but a number is what I'm told.

[Abe_froeman]

Yes Alex, those are the people I think should have a say in this.

[wulfhound]

Yes Alex, those are the people I think should have a say in this.

So should one option on the menu be to further restrict traffic movements around Bellenden, so that they don't have to suffer the increase?

After all, people tend to do what's easiest: traffic is, over the longer term, thought to be pretty elastic in supply/demand terms (that is, it'll expand to fill the space available - less space = ultimately, less traffic).

[edcam]

Big yawn re "Southwark cyclists". Cycling up and down CG was fine when the bridge was open. We did it for several years until we moved round the corner, both before and during the last width restriction.

James Barber - I don't think anyone is lobbying for unrestricted access. There should definitely be a width restriction, the street can't cope with larger vehicles. Cars and bikes are fine but this attempt to hijack the consultation by the irritating cycle lobby is an irrelevance.

[spider69]

Do not understand why Southwark should have to hold a consultation on a major artery road and one that has been such and used as such since the first day of construction.

Southwark should ,as they have stated, spend the ?!7,000 and reopen the bridge as it was before and which worked well and caused no problems. It does not need a consultation to do this.

I would have thought common sense would have seen that and appreciated that is the answer.

From my observations Bellenden has only had large amounts of traffic during the early morning rush hour and then it falls away to very little during a greater part of the day. This volume is again due to the bridge closure.

Agree with edcam cyclists did not seem to have any problems using the bridge whilst it was open.

This consultation I feel is just smoke and mirrors to hide what Southwark really has planned already.