Camberwell Grove rail bridge consultation

[edcam]

I agree. The A/B road argument is irrelevant here. It's a road that's used enough for there to be an unreasonable strain on smaller surrounding roads if it's closed. Which is why it should be reopened. If the closing of the Grove was part of a wider strategy regarding traffic in the area, then there might be some sort of justification but it wasn't and so there isn't.

[jimlad48]

CG has long had a weight restriction, so this is unlikely to cause much frustration if its reopens.

The fundamental problem is that between Bellenden Road and DMK, it is the only means of getting across the railway between the Grove Park and Camberwell Road. It functions as a vital artery to stop traffic clogging up camberwell high street doing 3 sides of a square to get up to CG, or having to divert via a rat run on tiny roads to get to the same spot.

The only people who directly benefit is the relatively small number of residents on CG who will no longer have as much traffic going past their house (e.g. the bit between grove park and the bridge). For everyone else, going over dog kennel hill to Camberwell means either going round via Camberwell (slowing traffic there), or going down part of CG and through grove park.

I don't own a car, but found that when I did, CG functioned as a critical artery to keep traffic flowing sensibly throughout this bit of London. The significant increase in traffic on other local roads, which are narrower than CG and less appropriate for heavy use (e.g. bellenden road and many side roads) is a direct impact of the closure.

My sense is that while its jolly nice for the local residents, its a huge inconvenience and negatively impacting far more people than it positively impacts. I strongly support reopening the bridge as soon as possible.

[intexasatthe moment]

"My sense is that while its jolly nice for the local residents, its a huge inconvenience and negatively impacting far more people than it positively impacts. I strongly support reopening the bridge as soon as possible."

Well put .

[Earl Aelfheah]

Camberwell Green has horrendous pollution concentrations (plus a school, a hospital and a playground just off it). Closing Cambwerwell Grove adds to the problem, by forcing even more traffic through a massive bottleneck. Bit quieter for those living on Millionaires row though.

[edcam]

As a former resident of CG, I can tell you that we found it pretty inconvenient when it was closed before, so not even all the CG residents approve of the closure, just a vocal minority.

Wrote:

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

> "My sense is that while its jolly nice for the

> local residents, its a huge inconvenience and

> negatively impacting far more people than it

> positively impacts. I strongly support reopening

> the bridge as soon as possible."

>

> Well put .

[seemster]

Hello - I've not been able to read through all the previous comments on the thread so apologies if I'm repeating a point here - but ref James Barber on p1 saying it will cost a lot to repair... My understanding is that a whole load of money has already been spent on repairing it - so I have voted for it to reopen on the basis of not wasting that investment as well as the significant inconvenience of it being closed. It's a road. It's meant to be driven on!

[James Barber]

Hi Rollflick,

I thought it was very clear that step lan is to reopen the road as it was before - one lane controlled by traffics lights.

The consultation I thought was about whether to instead keep it closed.

The lead Councillor was reported in Southwark News giving this context and view - from memory he expected it to reopen on this basis.

The problem is going about 3 tonnes would require ?1M and a number of train line closures. If someone wanted to organise a crowdfunding to raise that ?1M the council I'm sure would be happy to spend that money making the bridge permanently able to carry any legal weights.

Otherwise I think it is perfectly reasonable for the council to NOT spend your and my tax money doing this.

Hi ITATM,

It was stated Camberwell Grove was a main road. It isn't.

[Listen up]

A reminder to take the online survey soon if you haven't already done this. Only take a few minutes

https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/camberwell-grove-bridge/

The benefits to reopening the bridge vastly outweigh the negatives, including delays to P13 on Bellenden, snarl ups by the school on Lyndhurst Grove so narrow it that can't take extra traffic, and extra pressures on Camberwell Green and Peckham High Road.

[mikeb]

Bearing in mind the pressure to close off Loughborough Junction a couple of years ago, and the impending reorganisation of Bellenden Rd, Camberwell Grove represents one of the few remaining north-south routes, and so I would class it as 'important' even if you don't agree with 'main'.

[edcam]

Erm - is it too much to ask that the council pays for the jobs it is expected to pay for from their revenue? One of these jobs being to keep our roads in a useable condition. Yes, it's not a cheap proposition but this is what we pay for.

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi Rollflick,

> I thought it was very clear that step lan is to

> reopen the road as it was before - one lane

> controlled by traffics lights.

> The consultation I thought was about whether to

> instead keep it closed.

> The lead Councillor was reported in Southwark News

> giving this context and view - from memory he

> expected it to reopen on this basis.

>

> The problem is going about 3 tonnes would require

> ?1M and a number of train line closures. If

> someone wanted to organise a crowdfunding to raise

> that ?1M the council I'm sure would be happy to

> spend that money making the bridge permanently

> able to carry any legal weights.

> Otherwise I think it is perfectly reasonable for

> the council to NOT spend your and my tax money

> doing this.

>

> Hi ITATM,

> It was stated Camberwell Grove was a main road. It

> isn't.

[intexasatthe moment]

I'm not sure why Camberwell Grove being called a main road ( by whom I don't know ,I've not scrutinised the thread to find out ) is of such concern to you James that you feel the need to point out that it has neither an A or B classification .

As far as I can tell these classifications are very unhelpful when thinking about routes

"B roads are numbered collector routes, which have lower traffic densities than the main trunk roads, or A roads. This classification has nothing to do with the width or quality of the physical road, and B roads can range from dual carriageways to single track roads with passing places."

[en.wikipedia.org]

I can only imagine that you are trying to downplay the physical characteristics of Camberwell Grove it's lack of bends and it's width .

If the A and B classification has implications as far as funding maintenance perhaps you should explain .

[LynnB]

Hi all -

I have just received this info from a neighbourhood group working to ensure the bridge is repaired & reopened.

This appears time critical to get your opinions heard by the council.

"The Council is consulting on the closure or re-opening to one way traffic of the Camberwell Grove rail bridge. The temporary closure over the last year has increased significantly the traffic flows throughout the Bellenden area.

The Council are collecting comments on this in their on-line survey. The deadline is 30th October. The survey is here along with their background information:

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/camberwellgrovebridge

If you live in a street or use streets affected, it is important to get your views in via this survey.

The Council have leafleted some of the streets affected, but not everyone in these streets have received leaflets so may not know of this. And not all affected streets have been leafleted. So please forward this email to any local email contacts you have, to spread the word, and check that your neighbours know.

The Lane Ward Traffic Action Group has formed to campaign for the reopening of the bridge. You can join this group by emailing Lloyd Anderson at

An information leaflet produced by the Action Group is attached.

The Action Group will be taking a deputation to call for the bridge to be reopened, at the Peckham & Nunhead Community Council on Monday 13th November at 7pm at Harris Academy school on Peckham Road. The more people there the more effective. The deputation will be near the beginning of the meeting so get there for 7pm.

If you need more information about the issues and campaign please email Lloyd Anderson "

[Earl Aelfheah]

Fundamentally, if you want to reduce the number of people using cars, you have to provide reliable, frequent and fast public transport. We have buses which can take an hour to go 3 or 4 miles in rush hour and a train service run by Southern 🙄

[Earl Aelfheah]

... whilst that remains unresolved, closing down roads will just add to everyone?s pain.

[rendelharris]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Fundamentally, if you want to reduce the number of

> people using cars, you have to provide reliable,

> frequent and fast public transport. We have buses

> which can take an hour to go 3 or 4 miles in rush

> hour

Agreed, trouble is you can't get the buses going any faster unless there a fewer cars on the roads. Chicken and egg...

[intexasatthe moment]

LynnB ,thank you for your post above .

Interesting points in the leaflet .

"It should only be a temporary closure. The damage caused by heavy goods vehicles led to the bridge being closed to motor traffic in October 2016 under a temporary Traffic Management Order (Section 14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984). This means Southwark Council has a legal duty to repair and reopen the bridge. Southwark Council estimates the cost of repairing the bridge to allow light traffic (i.e. cars) to be just ?17,000. Southwark Council has chosen to ignore the order to repair and reopen the bridge, instead opting for a public consultation on whether to reopen it at all. The same thing happened in 2007, and Southwark Council was obliged to fulfil its responsibilities and re-open the bridge."

[Loz]

intexasatthe moment Wrote:

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

> This means Southwark Council has a legal duty to repair and reopen the bridge.

Isn't that pretty much the end of the debate?

[LynnB]

intexasatthe moment Wrote:

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

> This means Southwark Council has a legal duty to repair and reopen the bridge.

Loz responded: Isn't that pretty much the end of the debate?

It should be but it is not as "the council is now introducing the idea of a public consultation."

This suggests to me that the council will heed to concerns of the largest number of constituents, hence why the neighbourhood group is urging people to be involved and vocal about their position on this.

They encourage the followoing to be done this week:

If you want to ensure the bridge reopens, you need to take action THIS WEEK by

a) Emailing Councillor Ian Wingfield at [email protected] making clear the negative impact to your neighbourhood

b) Filling in the Council's online questionnaire when the consultation is called

c) Attending the Community Council meeting in your ward ? Peckham & Nunhead on 13 November and Camberwell on 14 November ? to make your voice heard.

Details can be found at:

www.southwark.gov.uk/engagement-and-consultations/community-councils

d) Emailing Southwark Council at [email protected] to ask for the bridge to be repaired and reopened as soon as possible

[Loz]

LynnB Wrote:

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

> intexasatthe moment Wrote:

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

> -----

> > This means Southwark Council has a legal duty to

> repair and reopen the bridge.

>

> Loz responded: Isn't that pretty much the end of

> the debate?

>

> It should be but it is not as "the council is now

> introducing the idea of a public consultation."

Can the council actually override a legal obligation with "well, we asked a few residents and they agreed we shouldn't do it"?

But yes, LynnB, best not to leave it to chance.

[LynnB]

"Can the council actually override a legal obligation with "well, we asked a few residents and they agreed we shouldn't do it"?"

One would hope not, but in my experience the council has done things that were against the council defined plans around building in this area, then they said - those were only recommendations or guidelines, so I'd get your 2 pence in if you feel strongly about the situation.

[wulfhound]

... whilst that remains unresolved, closing down roads will just add to everyone?s pain.

Not really, because you're closing the road to cars only. Make (electric) bikes, e-scooters, even walking an attractive alternative, and people will use them.

I read the other day that the Government are actually considering subsidy grants for e-bikes, hopefully this will bring them within reach of more people. A lot of cars would be off the road if walking the kids to school & then cycling on to work were a viable option for mums especially.. half term today and the roads this morning were practically empty, more cyclists than cars all the way from Village junction to Elephant.

[rollflick]

That assertion about the council having a duty to reopen the bridge is simply unarguable. Temporary traffic orders exist to enable highway authorities to restrict traffic for reasons like safety. Authorities can either rescind a temporary order or go through the usual consultation processes to make a permanent traffic order.

There's a useful rebuttal of that and other points in the leaflet on the Southwark Cyclists website:

https://southwarkcyclists.org.uk/camberwell-grove-closure-but-what-about/

As for the main road argument, there are many different classifications in law and policy, such as road hierarchies. Given the constraints of the bridge, meaning one-way shuttle working and significantly increased weight and width restrictions (something not made clear in the consultation) likewise its designation as a cycle quietway, Camberwell Grove is not suitable for significant amounts of motor traffic.

Definitely agree that buses are too slow but there's lots of potential to encourage a shift from driving to cycling, so long as there are some safe routes to ride on. That's what the Mayor and Transport for London want to encourage, in order to tackle air pollution and obesity from inactivity.

[Loz]

rollflick Wrote:

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

> That assertion about the council having a duty to reopen the bridge is simply

> unarguable. Temporary traffic orders exist to enable highway authorities to restrict

> traffic for reasons like safety. Authorities can either rescind a temporary order or

> go through the usual consultation processes to make a permanent traffic order.

>

> There's a useful rebuttal of that and other points in the leaflet on the Southwark Cyclists website...

Although you are accidentally correct in saying the assertion is indeed unarguable, I think you were actually attempting to say it was 'invalid'

The council itself said it has a legal duty. Who are we to believe - the council or a cyclist lobby group website, almost certainly written by someone with no real professional expertise?

[rupert james]

Southwark Cyclists have said

"While Chadwick Road has seen the biggest increase, it is still one of the quietest residential streets in the area. Even with the closure reducing traffic on Grove Hill Road outside the Dog Kennel Hill primary school by a third, traffic levels remain 2.5 times higher than on Chadwick Road".

What a load of rubbish. Perhaps Sally EvSouthwark Cyclists should try living on the Chadwick Road/Grove Park . Their minds would soon be changed.

[rollflick]

Definitely sympathise with Rupert James about the need to reduce traffic further, particularly when kids are going to/from school. There should be a third consultation option of keeping the bridge closed while taking further measures between Rye Lane and Denmark Hill, particularly around the new Belham primary school.

Regarding traffic flows, Southwark has provided a chart here showing traffic is still lower on Chadwick Road than on Camberwell Grove, even with the closure:

https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/camberwell-grove-bridge/supporting_documents/Figure%204.%20Summary%20table%20and%20graph%20of%207%20day%20traffic%20flow%20data%20before%20and%20after%20closure.pdf

The council do not mention this duty to reopen on its website or in the consultation materials - where are you exactly saying it has? And if it did there wouldn't be much point in a consultation would there?

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/roadworks-and-highway-improvements/bridges-subways-and-walls?chapter=2