Camberwell Grove bridge closed for at least 6 months

[rupert james]

When was I made a fool of. Please let me know

[rendelharris]

Rupert dear, you make a fool of yourself virtually every time you post. Scroll back through your history if you need examples.

ETA: if you need a current example, I just said I could never afford to live on Camberwell Grove. You came back accusing me of saying you could never afford to live on Camberwell Grove. Making a fool of yourself, right there.

[rupert james]

If only I was like you. I now know my place. Thank god.

I realise now I can never be perfect.

Do carry on with your posts.

Rupert Dear, were you an ex actor before going into teaching?

Don't reply. I will just read your postings on this forum and learn.

Take care

[rupert james]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> Rupert dear, you make a fool of yourself virtually

> every time you post. Scroll back through your

> history if you need examples.

>

> ETA: if you need a current example, I just said I

> could never afford to live on Camberwell Grove.

> You came back accusing me of saying you could

> never afford to live on Camberwell Grove. Making

> a fool of yourself, right there.

Agreed the old eyes are not like they used to be but I can live with it

[jimmyraj]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi rupert james,

> Was Camberwell Grove a major through route when

> originally constructed what 200-300+ years ago?

> Car ownership then was zero. Possibly predates

> bicycles. Horse and cart ownership was also

> extremely low. It has never been a tram or bus

> route. So for the life of me I can't see how

> Camberwell Grove has always been a major road?

>

> Half the traffic in Southwark starts and ends it

> journey outside the borough. WOuldn't it be fab if

> that traffic didn't use such residential roads as

> cut -throughs/rat-runs but stuck to the actual

> main roads. And indeed vice versa when Southwark

> residents drive across other boroughs.

>

> At a public meeting their was recently talk of

> trying something like this for Dulwich Village at

> school run hours.

But the traffic has to go somewhere. At the moment it filters left into Lyndhurst Grove (for those who have turned up Camberwell Grove); or it goes along Peckham Road and turns right up Lyndhurst Way. Either way, it ends up at Bellenden Road where the junctions around Chadwick Road, Choumert Road and Danby are now a safety hazard (more than they were already). It would be 'fab' if people used alternative means of transport, but unfortunately the public transport infrastructure is creaking already - particularly rail. Idealism is great, but I think we need to look for practical and realistic solutions.

[edcam]

Cars using Camberwell Grove has never been a worry, it's HGVs and large vans that are the problem. The width restriction took care of that, so let's hope they reopen the road as soon as possible but maintain the width restriction.

[pop9770]

Cars using roads what ever next....

[wulfhound]

At a public meeting their was recently talk of trying something like this for Dulwich Village at school run hours.

That would be amazing.

But the traffic has to go somewhere.

No, it doesn't. Traffic is a product of human choices.

At the moment it filters left into Lyndhurst Grove (for those who have turned up Camberwell Grove); or it goes along Peckham Road and turns right up Lyndhurst Way. Either way, it ends up at Bellenden Road where the junctions around Chadwick Road, Choumert Road and Danby are now a safety hazard (more than they were already).

That much is true. But that's an argument for fixing it there & provide further stick/carrot for "through" users to stay on main roads (as an occasional driver, I'd like both please - "stick" to prevent rat runs, and the carrot of road pricing to reduce jams on the main arteries).

[mikeb]

I'm intrigued as to what constitutes as "rat run". Is it simply traffic travelling on roads where people don't want it? I don't think it can be about the intended use of the road as there are very few roads around here built specifically for large volumes of motor vehicle traffic.

Camberwell Grove is a straight through-road, more so than Grove Lane or Champion Park. In maps of the 19th and early 20th centuries, Champion Grove looks like a much more major thoroughfare than Grove Lane. Even Champion Hill looks bigger.

It seems that Camberwell Grove is now commonly understood to be a rat run. It seems things can change. Maybe we should stop focusing on what has been in the past and instead come to an agreement about what we want for the future.

There appears to be alignment between those who want to discourage driving everywhere per se and those who just don't want it on their road. The fact that we might lose a north-south route just because of poor maintenance seems like a poor substitute for actual debate.

[SpringTime]

Isn't the busy nature of Camberwell Grove partly to do with the restrictive one-way system at the bottom of Grove Lane? I've always thought it odd not to be able (at least) to turn left off Camberwell Church Street up Grove Lane and then pass the Morrison's carpark to get to Coldharbour Lane. You have to bottle-neck it to Camberwell Green, then turn left, left again and then right. Same problems coming back from Denmark Hill. But what's really crazy is not being able to turn right coming from Camberwell New Road up Denmark Hill - you then have to pass Grove Lane and turn right up Camberwell Grove to get south, unless you can go further over to Peckham or do a U-ey and go back up Denmark Hill...

[Jeremy]

SpringTime Wrote:

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

> what's really crazy is not being able to turn

> right coming from Camberwell New Road up Denmark

> Hill - you then have to pass Grove Lane and turn

> right up Camberwell Grove to get south, unless you

> can go further over to Peckham or do a U-ey and go

> back up Denmark Hill...

You're supposed to hang a left onto Medlar Street before you reach the junction. But yes, it's all a bit of a mess.

[wulfhound]

@SpringTime yes, that is daft - preventing turns between one main A-road and another increases pressure on side roads which aren't built for it.

[edhistory]

mikeb Wrote:

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

>

> Camberwell Grove is a straight through-road, more

> so than Grove Lane or Champion Park. In maps of

> the 19th and early 20th centuries, Champion Grove

> looks like a much more major thoroughfare than

> Grove Lane. Even Champion Hill looks bigger.

Mike,

The Bennost Map of 1758, despite its inaccuracies, clarifies the natural route through East Dulwich.

John K

[mikeb]

Thanks John, I'd not seen that before. nice interactive version available here: http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/onlineex/crace/a/zoomify88781.html

So Camberwell Grove could possibly be considered to be the first by-pass in the area? Purpose built road, straight, modern bridge over the railway ...

[DulwichLondoner]

mikeb Wrote:

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

> I'm intrigued as to what constitutes as "rat run".

> Is it simply traffic travelling on roads where

> people don't want it?

Very well said! One could argue that, I don't know, Tintagel Crescent, where the entrance to Goose Green Primary is, is not a main road because it is a short, narrow crescent, but Camberwell Grove, however unsuitable for heavy vehicles, is a straight 0.6-mile stretch of road which, once/if they fix the bridge, would be perfectly suitable for car traffic.

Also, why are motorcycles not allowed? Methinks it's because residents don't want to be bothered by the noise. I struggle to think it's about safety, because scooters and motorcycles can weigh roughly from 100 to 300 Kg, meaning that a motorcyclist on a motorcycle can weigh like 2 to 4 average adults. If the bridge is safe for 4 adult pedestrians to cross, surely it is safe for a motorcyclist weighing the same? Or am I missing something?

James Barber Wrote:

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

> WOuldn't it be fab if

> that traffic didn't use such residential roads as

> cut -throughs/rat-runs but stuck to the actual

> main roads. And indeed vice versa when Southwark

> residents drive across other boroughs.

As above! Who makes this determination? The Not-In-My-Backyard mob who don't want to be troubled by plebs going through their beloved road? If you simply look at a map, Camberwell grove stands out as a rather obvious North-South artery.

We have to be very careful with direct democracy because the interests of the NIMBY mob are often radically different from those of the wider community.

About 18 months ago Lambeth council closed a number of roads around Calais street, because residents didn't want their precious roads used by ordinary mortals, but luckily the backlash was so intense they had to cancel the whole scheme. If you approach Calais street from Denmark road you still see a red sign that Calais street is closed to traffic, which is luckily no longer true. Yet the sign is still there. Mmm...

[Earl Aelfheah]

Some rather 'long term' looking concrete blocks have joined the flower beds outside Denmark Hill station. Are these bridges going to be opened any time soon? How is it that they can just be allowed to fall in to disrepair and disuse without any accountability?

[bels123]

Does anyone have an update (or know where we would get one) as to when the bridge will open?

Thanks

[sally buying]

bels123 Wrote:

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

> Does anyone have an update (or know where we would

> get one) as to when the bridge will open?

>

> Thanks

With regard to be above a resident friend of mine had this reply back from Southwark when he asked the same question of Southwark

Do not hold your breath

"Thank you for your e-mail query. Please accept our apologies for sending you a belated response.

At present, our term consultant is carrying out the detailed design of the required strengthening measures to be implemented to the bridge. The design works are planned to be completed by mid-April, 2017.

Following completion of the detailed design, London Borough of Southwark (LBS) will obtain construction costs from our term contractor. Based on the contractor?s work methodology, LBS will discuss with Network Rail to arrange rail possessions and identify the associated cost. After identifying the overall cost of the works, LBS will submit a bid for the required funding from LoBEG (London Bridges Engineering Group). LoBEG is an advisory body, who prioritise Transport for London funding for assessment/strengthening/replacement of concerned bridges in the 33 London Boroughs. For information, the funding required to complete the structural load assessment of Camberwell Grove bridge was provided by LoBEG.

Please note that arranging rail possessions with Network Rail is a lengthy process that takes significant time. For instance, LBS awaited over 1.5 years to get the required rail possessions from Network Rail to complete the initial inspection of the bridge to aid the structural load assessment. In addition, if LBS are not successful in the bid for funding from LoBEG, alternative resources will need to be looked at which may take more time.

Therefore, in summary, LBS are not in a position to tell an exact date for implementing strengthening works on site or re-opening of the bridge. However, LBS assure the public that it make every effort to reopen the bridge sooner than later.

I trust that the above answers your query. If you need further information/clarification please do not hesitate to contact me."

Regards

Aravind

Thiagarajah Aravind

Interim Manager ? Structures

Highway Maintenance Team

Highways Division

Environment & Leisure

London Borough of Southwark

Hub 2, Third Floor

160 Tooley Street

London

SE1 2QH

[Abe_froeman]

Shocking

[sally buying]

http://www.2.southwark.gov.uk/info/200083/roadworks_and_highway_improvements/585/bridges_subways_and_walls/2

This is the news page for the Bridge.

Interesting reading

[edcam]

For all the good it will do, I've emailed Southwark on the address within the link sally buying posted above. The ongoing closure of the bridge has turned the adjacent roads into a nightmare at times. They have to reopen it to cars (but keep the restriction on HGVs.

[rendelharris]

edcam Wrote:

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

> For all the good it will do, I've emailed

> Southwark on the address within the link sally

> buying posted above. The ongoing closure of the

> bridge has turned the adjacent roads into a

> nightmare at times. They have to reopen it to

> cars (but keep the restriction on HGVs.

How can they reopen it to cars when the report linked to above says "This assessment work was carried out in summer last year. It was of a much more stringent nature based on the latest national standards and resulted in a determination that the bridge could not sustain any sort of motor vehicle loading."

Not having a go, but if it's been determined to be unsafe for any motor vehicles and needs a ?1M repair, how can it be reopened until that's done?

[bargee99]

The ?1m is the cost to make it safe for large vehicles. For cars from the council website "the cost to the Council for this option is approximately ?17,000 plus the costs for any works above the bridge to ensure the 3.0 tonne limit is not exceeded (such 'above' works would be required for either maintaining the status quo permanently or to manage a 3.0 tonne limit. The costs to strengthen the bridge to 7.5 tonnes or more is in excess of ?1m."

I make that 4 or 5 bike hangers :-)

[rendelharris]

Ah seen. Thanks.

[edcam]

And of course they can't open it until it's repaired but ?17k is nothing.