Camberwell Grove rail bridge consultation

[rendelharris]

edcam Wrote:

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

> 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.

This is a public consultation and cycling organisations are quite entitled to make a contribution to the debate. They are not "hijacking" the consultation, but expressing their point of view as is their democratic right. Try this sentence: "The road should remain closed and this attempt to hijack the consultation by motorists is an irrelevance." Would that be OK?

[edcam]

The point is that the Grove is open to cyclists whether the bridge is closed or not, perhaps you're unaware that cyclists can get through the blockade as things stand, so in this instance, it is an irrelevance.

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> edcam Wrote:

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

> -----

> > 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.

>

> This is a public consultation and cycling

> organisations are quite entitled to make a

> contribution to the debate. They are not

> "hijacking" the consultation, but expressing their

> point of view as is their democratic right. Try

> this sentence: "The road should remain closed and

> this attempt to hijack the consultation by

> motorists is an irrelevance." Would that be OK?

[taper]

I'm staggered at the position of Southwark Cyclists on the bridge closure. Utterly asinine. and reputationally damaging for the group.

I used to cycle up Camberwell Grove every morning and back down in the late afternoon, when the bridge was partly open, dragging my then young daughter in a child trailer behind me. It was absolutely fine because the road is straight and visibility good. Whereas, heading down Lyndhurst Grove, which is narrow and winding, with a bad surface, and cars coming onto the road from the northern side, was very treacherous. It will be a lot worse now with the traffic increase.

They should change their position.

[rendelharris]

edcam Wrote:

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

> The point is that the Grove is open to cyclists

> whether the bridge is closed or not, perhaps

> you're unaware that cyclists can get through the

> blockade as things stand, so in this instance, it

> is an irrelevance.

I'm fully aware of that thanks as I ride through it nearly every day. Reopening the bridge will return traffic to pre-closure levels, are cyclists not allowed to comment on that? It's certainly been a lot more pleasant to cycle on since the bridge closed - previously going from the bridge up towards DKH, with parked cars on the right, there was a lot of tight/risky squeezing by, especially by vans. I'm not necessarily saying that's a deal breaker, but cyclists will be affected by the reopening or otherwise of the bridge and so, much as it seems to annoy you, they do have a right to offer their opinions on the matter.

[cookie]

Southwark cyclists don't speak on behalf of all cyclists. I cycle through the Bellenden one way system every morning and evening, it feels alot busier and less safe since Camberwell Grove was closed. It's subjective, but I feel motorists have become more impatient and Give Way markings less likely to be observed at Chadwick Road and Lyndhurst Grove, perhaps because vehicles have been forced down small residential roads and become frustrated?

Even when Camberwell Grove was open to traffic I never felt unsafe cycling along it. I responded that it should be opened, but not sure if my opinion will be noted as I live in SE22 not the immediate vicinity.

[edcam]

Well of course everyone is entitled to an opinion but the fact remains that although it might be "more pleasant" to cycle on CG, it was hardly a chore before. Actually, since the closure, I've seen cyclists going down the Grove at dangerous speeds on frequent occasions, so having to share the road with cars may have a positive effect on the poor behaviour of that minority of cyclists by moderating their speed.

As cookie says above, CG wasn't unsafe for cyclists when open to traffic, so it's not as if reopening it will have negative effect. I'll also echo the point that cycling on the surrounding roads is much more hazardous under the current conditions.

rendelharris Wrote:

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

>

> I'm fully aware of that thanks as I ride through

> it nearly every day. Reopening the bridge will

> return traffic to pre-closure levels, are cyclists

> not allowed to comment on that? It's certainly

> been a lot more pleasant to cycle on since the

> bridge closed - previously going from the bridge

> up towards DKH, with parked cars on the right,

> there was a lot of tight/risky squeezing by,

> especially by vans. I'm not necessarily saying

> that's a deal breaker, but cyclists will be

> affected by the reopening or otherwise of the

> bridge and so, much as it seems to annoy you, they

> do have a right to offer their opinions on the

> matter.

[Beulah]

Oh excellent, this is heating up properly now. The anti-motorist conspiracy theme developed quickly, but I'm surprised it took so long to start on "dangerous" cyclists.

[edcam]

As a sometime cyclist myself and the partner of a daily cyclist, I can confirm that there are good drivers/bad drivers and good cyclists/bad cyclists. Any of these permutations are permissible as topics, no?

Anyway, back to the point. Reopening the Grove won't have an adverse effect on cyclists and will benefit them in the surrounding area.

Beulah Wrote:

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

> Oh excellent, this is heating up properly now. The

> anti-motorist conspiracy theme developed quickly,

> but I'm surprised it took so long to start on

> "dangerous" cyclists.

[rendelharris]

edcam Wrote:

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

Actually, since the closure, I've

> seen cyclists going down the Grove at dangerous

> speeds on frequent occasions, so having to share

> the road with cars may have a positive effect on

> the poor behaviour of that minority of cyclists by

> moderating their speed.

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!

[Sally Eva]

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.

I can agree with this. It seems a bit unfair that it is not allowed to apply to the residents of Camberwell Grove but that's a cheap point really.

If we consider the underlying point it seems to be that residents should get greater consideration than the people who use the roads " the convenience of road users". Ok. I can agree with that too. Let's traffic-calm the whole area of the toast rack and the area bounded by the railway line. Transport planners could draw up a scheme which would put off through traffic while still allowing residents access to their own home -- Telegraph Hill is a good example of this.

Cyclists would certainly support it. We would also be able to use it. It would be cleaner, quieter and safer than roads used by motorised through traffic in a hurry (which is currently most of it). People living within it could cycle safely, their kids could cycle to school -- it could be really good.

I reckon a lot of people on this list will immediately attack this comment. The interesting question is Why? I'm interested in the answer to this.

[macutd]

well we would all love our roads to be cordoned off, who cares about other road users!!

[Sally Eva]

macutd Wrote:

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

> well we would all love our roads to be cordoned

> off, who cares about other road users!!

thank you. That's the paradox in a sentence.

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?

[taper]

Why are Southwark Cyclists supporting a position which acts against the interests of cyclists who use different routes in that immediate area?

[Sally Eva]

Could you be more specific?

[taper]

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.

[Loz]

Personally, I think it should either be repaired or be removed completely. It has structural problems. Repairs would allow 'small cars' (i.e. about 1400kg) to use the bridge. So does that mean that currently, in it's 'damaged' state, half that, so a group of about 10 people, would be considered a dangerous load?

[Charles Notice]

It seems that people have forgotten actually what Camberwell Grove is.

It is a public highway for all.

There should be no consultation. It should be repaired and opened with either a full road or as it was before with a one way system.

Cannot see why this is taking place.

Public highway for all people. How difficult is that to understand.

[wulfhound]

See previous post. The closed bridge makes Lyndhurst Grove, Lyndhurst Way and Bellenden a lot more treacherous for cyclists using those roads.

Wasn't Lyndhurst Way & Bellenden supposed to have been revamped with protected cycle lanes by now? Plans were published 2 or 3 years ago IIRC. Anyone know if that's still going ahead?

[macutd]

"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?"

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"!!!

[rendelharris]

macutd Wrote:

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

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

And with clever, sensitive traffic management, combined with people accepting that they need to cut their car use for school runs, shopping trips etc, we could have them.

New report today - 500,000 people die prematurely across Europe each year due to fossil fuel pollution. We just can't go on thinking that using our cars for everything, any time we please, is a "right" - we're killing ourselves, it's insane.

[James Barber]

Hi Sally Eva,

Such as scheme has been suggested in the past by Councillor Ian Wingfield for Dulwich Village. Allowing Southwark residents to drive through but not non Southwark residents unless they stay on the main roads i.e. the A roads. Half of all cars start and end journeys outside Southwark. Suspect now with GPS route finders now more likely to follow back roads such as Camberwell Grove. The idea being to make the school run safer for kids to walk and cycle to school. If such a scheme were to happen then several railway crossing such as this could make the area much more pleasant for those not driving and for Southwark residents who drive. Enforced via ANPRS.

In the last 25 years London population has increased from 6.8 to 8.8 residents. The same is forecast to happen again. Doing the same and keeping the same road conditions assuming this forecast happens shouldn't be an option. 25% more traffic on our local roads.

In fact we're seeing the opposite. TfL are nipping away at the existing bus services. Today I learnt that the no.42 bus route will reduce from one every 10 min to every 12 minutes.That a 17% reduction. Same with 176.

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.

[rendelharris]

Loz Wrote:

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

> Personally, I think it should either be repaired

> or be removed completely. It has structural

> problems. Repairs would allow 'small cars' (i.e.

> about 1400kg) to use the bridge. So does that

> mean that currently, in it's 'damaged' state, half

> that, so a group of about 10 people, would be

> considered a dangerous load?

I believe most bridge structural weaknesses are caused by vibration rather than direct load bearing - hence the famous sign on Albert Bridge telling marching troops to break step. Vehicles send vibrations through a structure in a way the equivalent weight of people don't.

[Loz]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> I believe most bridge structural weaknesses are

> caused by vibration rather than direct load

> bearing - hence the famous sign on Albert Bridge

> telling marching troops to break step. Vehicles

> send vibrations through a structure in a way the

> equivalent weight of people don't.

That is often the cause, yes, but now the structural weakness has been caused, then pure load may cause further degradation.

[Penguin68]

That is often the cause, yes, but now the structural weakness has been caused, then pure load may cause further degradation.

Whilst this is so, point pressure is important - 10 people are unlikely to walk so close together that they occupy the same road space as a single car. In fact, to further obviate the issue some form of lightweight spreader plate could further ease the point pressure. In practical terms I assume that the 'small cars' restriction assumes that small cars may actually queue (nose to tail) over the bridge and still not cause a collapse, which is a much higher weight on the structure than just a single small car.

[almost peckham]

"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."

Which is lovely, James. In the meantime cyclists, pedestrians, and residents along Chadwick, Bellenden, Avondale, and other roads are tolerating 2000-3000 extra cars per day.The bridge being shut might be nice for the (relatively) few who live there but it is no answer to traffic reduction for the many who live around it.

Any coherent traffic reduction for the area would have to take account of a mesh of similarly-sized streets bounded by Camberwell New Road - Denmark Hill/Grove Vale - East Dulwich Road - Rye Lane; quite a large area. Ironically, Camberwell Grove is one of the roads in that whole block that looks most like a through route on a map, ie, straight.

A couple of weeks ago Mrs Almost Peckham and me were walking down Camberwell Grove. An ambulance with lights flashing passed us, a minute or two later it passed us again on its way back up the hill. Five minutes later we saw the same ambulance lower down CG coming up from Camberwell then turning into McNeil Road. Hopefully those lost five minutes weren't critical.