LynnB

From the Peckham Peculiar: "Lloyd Anderson from The Lane Ward Traffic Action Group, who lives on Lyndhurst Grove, said: ?The closure of Camberwell Grove railway bridge has led to marked increases in traffic volumes in the immediate neighbourhood ? up by 78 per cent on Lyndhurst Grove and Bellenden Road, and by 96 per cent on Chadwick Road. ?The impacts of this pressure on surrounding, narrower, streets include an increase in the number of traffic conflicts and potential collisions, leading to arguments and losses of temper; an increase in vehicle emissions, affecting air quality and noise levels especially near schools; a less safe environment in which to move around, particularly for schoolchildren; greater distances travelled by motor vehicles; longer emergency response times; and a decline in trade for local businesses that depend on ease of access and a welcoming environment. All in all, the closure of the bridge has made many lives miserable.? http://peckhampeculiar.tumblr.com/post/166353095608/we-wont-cross-that-bridge-when-we-come-to-it

I am not directly involved with them, but my understanding is that they are rallying locals who wish to see the Camberwell Grove Bridge re-opened after repair.

FYI-Just received the following e-mail. It sounds like it is important for locals to show upon Monday & Tuesday of this week coming up: MESSAGE FROM THE LANE WARD TRAFFIC ACTION GROUP Dear All, Yesterday, Al Roots, Rebecca Kong and myself were asked to attend a meeting with Cllr Ian Wingfield, three Southwark Highways staff, and three 'keep closed' residents from Camberwell Grove, to discuss the consultation process and the issues raised. It was a broadly positive meeting, with a frank exchange of views on both sides. We were much reassured that Cllr Wingfield will listen to and take account of the views of all the communities impacted, not just the Camberwell Grove residents. It is made VERY clear at this meeting that we must ensure our presence is felt at BOTH the community council meetings on Monday and Tuesday next week, and we would urge you to attend these and encourage as many of your neighbours to do so too. To remind you, the meeting on Monday 13th November will be at 7pm at the Harris Academy school, 112 Peckham Road, SE15 5DZ, where we will present the deputation. JUST AS IMPORTANTLY, the Camberwell meeting will be on Tuesday 14th November at the Employment Academy, 29 Peckham Road, Camberwell, SE5 8UA. It is vital at this stage, when the final decision is being weighed up, that as many of us attend as possible. Please do share this email as widely as you can, and please do attend these vital meetings. More crucially, since both myself and Rebecca are unable to attend on Tuesday (I am out of the country, and Rebecca has a parents evening), please please do come along on our behalf!!! After everyone's hard work, this is a really important stage. Many thanks, Lloyd Anderson PS. On Wednesday evening, Al, Rebecca and I met another of our ward councillors, Jasmine Ali, together with two parents from the Belham School air quality group. They have a wider agenda about improving air quality in the neighbourhood, but are thus supportive of our campaign as part of moving towards a more strategic approach to traffic management.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If that is the outcome, I am far from surprised. > The consultation was (sadly) always an > irrelevance. I have also found this to be my experience in one previous local consultation. I think people need to remember this when they vote for local councillors, and make your displeasure known now so that they are aware of it.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LynnB Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Any data based upon a small sample size > increases > > the chance the data are not accurate. > > Traffic data for one week is an example. A > larger > > sample would very likely give a more accurate > > value. > > Perfectly fair point (as opposed to someone just > saying "what a load of rubbish you don't live > here") - but the ratios would remain fairly > consistent, wouldn't they? So Southwark Cyclists' > assertion, angrily dismissed (not by you) that > traffic on Grove Hill Road remains 2.5x that on > Chadwick is still valid. Whether this validates > or invalidates the case for bridge closure or > reopening I really don't know, but the debate > isn't helped by people (again, not you) just > dismissing figures without offering any > alternative evidence. Not sure if I understand the source of the data that generate the ratio of which you are speaking. A ratio does not mitigate the problems with a small sample size poorly representing the true value, unless the ratio is made up of numbers from a larger sample size, the ratio will have the potential to mislead as well as any single non-fraction value. For full disclosure I am pro-cycles & public transport and I don't own a car.

Any data based upon a small sample size increases the chance the data are not accurate. Traffic data for one week is an example. A larger sample would very likely give a more accurate value. The data could be skewed to show a lot more traffic or a lot less traffic than the average based upon a larger sample size. Several reasons spring to mind as to why traffic data could be unusually low in a certain week. It is currently half-term & I live near a school. Typically there are lots of cars dropping off & picking up kids. This week there are none. Another example is reduced traffic in August when everyone is on holiday somewhere else. When surrounding roads are diverted traffic on alternate roads goes up artificially until that is resolved.

A neighbourhood group shared a leaflet which I have posted above in this thread. Part of it read: "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." I do not have legal expertise. This statement suggests that a temporary Traffic Management Order (Section 14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984)requires that the bridge be re-opened. I do not know if that is accurate.

"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.

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

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 "