Camberwell Grove rail bridge consultation

[rendelharris]

Why don't you put forward some form of argument or other contribution to the discussion, instead of just needling and trying (and failing) to get a rise out of someone who disagrees with your point of view? It's a bit sad that you are eschewing argument in favour of trying to demonize those who don't agree with you.

[taper]

I don't think keeping Camberwell Grove's bridge closed is a position Southwark Cyclists should or indeed can support. If you use that route, then I can see why you might be attracted to the idea. But if you live on, walk around or cycle through the roads east of CG, then its continued closure is a lousy prospect. Southwark Cyclists presumably aspire to represent all Southwark's cyclists. If they do, then i think they should remain neutral on the question of what to do with the bridge as there are conflicts with either (even though i think the best overall outcome for cyclists is the one lane solution). The consultation is on a narrow set of questions and should not be used as a proxy for making a wider point about provision for cyclists in that area (which i agree is poor) or traffic levels.

[wulfhound]

But, the analogy is spot on. You just can't bring yourself to admit you are anti-car, so you make nebulous claims that you hate "hate their lazy, selfish, unnecessary and inconsiderate use" and drop in that you somehow are OK with "sensibly used low emissions motor vehicles". I'm surprised you didn't go the whole hog and slip in "well, some of my best friends drive cars".

Just admit it - you are anti-car. You want to see the bridge closed to traffic because you hate cars.

How about anti-inappropriate-use-of-car?

I don't hate cars, I think (as with opiate painkillers, gas fired power stations and warships) they're a useful tool for a specific range of things. If you need to get a family of four and a bunch of camping gear to some remote part of Wales, for example, there's really no good alternative. I've lived in places where your quality of life without owning a motor vehicle could accurately be described as sod-all. SE5 isn't one of them.

However, for moving people a few miles around a densely populated city, they're simply the wrong tool. Anti-social by design and by definition (convertibles with the roof down aside), vastly overweight and over-engineered and, as a direct result, creating disproportionate danger, energy waste and noise (all essentially facets of the same thing). You simply don't need a 60 kilowatt engine, 1.5 tonne chassis and motorway-grade impact protection to move one or two people and a few kilos of stuff a couple miles around a city. Your average cyclist can probably sustain 500 watts on a good day and 15mph average speed, which is as quick as driving in London; for people who can't or don't want to keep that up for an hour, or have a young child or a small amount of work gear to carry, electronic assist will do the same.

It's as if we all one day decided to use petrol chainsaws for a bit of light gardening. There are times and places where heavy, noisy and dangerous power tools are the only practical way to get the job done - but it's better for everyone (in a densely populated city) if we use them as a last resort.

[rendelharris]

Very well said and well put Wulfhound - except for your calculations about wattage, on the flat I go around 20-22mph in ideal conditions, putting out around 190 watts - if I could put out 500 watts I'd average over 30MPH and would certainly be going in for agegroup racing! Chris Froome's peak power in tests is 525W, his power in forty minute sessions is around 420W!

Just nitpicking an otherwise very lucid post, thank you.

[wulfhound]

Interesting. Turns out I got the wattage wrong for a typical hatchback too (90KW, not 60), so the power difference is 450x not 120x.

Yes, people are using literally four hundred and fifty times more power to move themselves around town than they arguably need to - and even if you assume that, for urban driving, most of the time a car will be in the bottom third of its performance envelope, it's still 150x.

I think you'll enjoy this book.. I certainly did! https://www.amazon.com/Energy-Glut-Politics-Fatness-Overheating/dp/1848135181

[Penguin68]

Yes, people are using literally four hundred and fifty times more power - Actually, fit and healthy people are using...

Try being old, infirm, asthmatic, rheumatic, living in the hilly bits of SE London (surprisingly many), having to move shopping, equipment, other people even more infirm etc. around. Try stepping into another's shoes, if only for a second or two. Yes, of course, for the youngish and fit cycling is a good option, but not, for instance, for the very elderly cyclist I was driving behind a couple of weeks ago who fell off his bike (quite badly) when he tried to pull into a kerb, and, when several people helped him back onto his feet, insisted on continuing to weave - I was going to say through traffic, but actually just along the road. No doubt he had bought into the cycling story - but really, perhaps he shouldn't have. I am in favour of a mixed economy, where different road users are allowed to coexist, exercising their choices on how to get about.

Anti-social by design and by definition (convertibles with the roof down aside) If a car, carrying up to 4 or 5 people, is 'anti-social', how much more so must a single user bicycle be? - And how many conversations with strangers have you struck up in a London tube or bus (or train) recently.

[wulfhound]

Try being old, infirm, asthmatic, rheumatic, living in the hilly bits of SE London (surprisingly many), having to move shopping, equipment, other people even more infirm etc. around.

Been there, done that, got the shirt. OK, the shirt may have been a tad sweaty. Again, a few hundred pounds will buy the asthmatic, rheumatic or heavily-burdened more wattage in easy electronic assist than Chris Froome can manage on a bad day. And again, I do drive when the job requires it.. the point is that 19 times in 20, it doesn't.

Anti-social by design and by definition (convertibles with the roof down aside) If a car, carrying up to 4 or 5 people, is 'anti-social'

But most of them aren't carrying 4 or 5 people most of the time, are they?

how much more so must a single user bicycle be?

More often than not, I'll run in to someone I know on my a.m. commute. Today I stopped to help a total stranger who'd suffered a minor bike breakdown. Week before that I helped a couple of other cyclists push a broken down school-run car off the road, much to the appreciation of its driver and other stuck motorists. The p.m. commute is usually a bit less sociable (I work late), but a few weeks back I stopped to help a young woman suffering a severe panic attack.

- And how many conversations with strangers have you struck up in a London tube or bus (or train) recently.

Only one in the last few weeks, and that was a couple of mildly lost out-of-towners who may not have been cognisant of the Rule That Thou Shalt Not Talk To People, but again I tend to run in to acquaintances more often than not.

[rendelharris]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> Try being... asthmatic...

Does one really have to draw your attention to the irony in that statement? Two thirds of people with asthma have their suffering increased by air pollution!

Nobody is trying to ban cars for everybody, despite what certain people here believe. That does not mean that it's wrong to campaign to limit car use, promote healthier and more environmentally friendly alternatives and to restrict cars to major arteries where possible instead of allowing free for all ratrunning through anywhere their drivers please.

"I am in favour of a mixed economy, where different road users are allowed to coexist, exercising their choices on how to get about." Which is all very libertarian, but when one particular group of road users' choices impose negatively on the health, safety and quality of life of others then free choice for all becomes patently foolish. To pick up an analogy used earlier, if I want the freedom of choice to throw my refuse out on the street rather than put it in bins, is that OK? Just because you might believe we'd have a healthier and happier society if we all used bins, why can't I exercise my freedom of choice not to?

[Penguin68]

Two thirds of people with asthma have their suffering increased by air pollution!

Whilst that is probably true, only 25% of air pollution seems to be caused by vehicles, and the most significant problem here is with diesel vehicles, producing NOx (which is definitely a pollutant). I don't drive a diesel - and a discouragement on the use of diesel cars would be welcomed; it is unfortunate that in fighting non polluting CO2 the government has managed to substantially up actual pollution levels. To attack all vehicles as being a significant cause of asthma is not correct. [CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but NOT a pollutant].

[taper]

This is getting way way off topic.

[Earl Aelfheah]

wulfhound Wrote:

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

> > But, the analogy is spot on. You just can't

> bring yourself to admit you are anti-car, so you

> make nebulous claims that you hate "hate their

> lazy, selfish, unnecessary and inconsiderate use"

> and drop in that you somehow are OK with "sensibly

> used low emissions motor vehicles". I'm surprised

> you didn't go the whole hog and slip in "well,

> some of my best friends drive cars".

> Just admit it - you are anti-car. You want to see

> the bridge closed to traffic because you hate

> cars.

>

>

> How about anti-inappropriate-use-of-car?

>

> I don't hate cars, I think (as with opiate

> painkillers, gas fired power stations and

> warships) they're a useful tool for a specific

> range of things. If you need to get a family of

> four and a bunch of camping gear to some remote

> part of Wales, for example, there's really no good

> alternative. I've lived in places where your

> quality of life without owning a motor vehicle

> could accurately be described as sod-all. SE5

> isn't one of them.

>

> However, for moving people a few miles around a

> densely populated city, they're simply the wrong

> tool. Anti-social by design and by definition

> (convertibles with the roof down aside), vastly

> overweight and over-engineered and, as a direct

> result, creating disproportionate danger, energy

> waste and noise (all essentially facets of the

> same thing). You simply don't need a 60 kilowatt

> engine, 1.5 tonne chassis and motorway-grade

> impact protection to move one or two people and a

> few kilos of stuff a couple miles around a city.

> Your average cyclist can probably sustain 500

> watts on a good day and 15mph average speed, which

> is as quick as driving in London; for people who

> can't or don't want to keep that up for an hour,

> or have a young child or a small amount of work

> gear to carry, electronic assist will do the

> same.

>

> It's as if we all one day decided to use petrol

> chainsaws for a bit of light gardening. There are

> times and places where heavy, noisy and dangerous

> power tools are the only practical way to get the

> job done - but it's better for everyone (in a

> densely populated city) if we use them as a last

> resort.

It's one thing to think that there should be a strategy for encouraging people out of cars (I'd agree) and another to just close one or two roads (regardless off the knock on effects). This is not going to lead to a step change in car use, it's just going to concentrate the impact of cars in certain areas.

[rendelharris]

I beg to differ, Penguin: the GLA estimates that 48% of London's air pollution comes from road transport. 75% of carbon monoxide in the urban environment comes from cars - not just diesel cars - and is particularly hazardous to unborn children and those with asthma or other respiratory problems. Furthermore, in terms of particulate pollution, 20% in London comes from the brake discs and tyres of all vehicles, not just diesels. Diesel cars account for 11% of NOx pollution, but petrol cars account for 7%. Certainly restrictions on diesels are to be welcomed, but don't kid yourself that petrol cars are a good healthy alternative - they're just less bad.

[rendelharris]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> It's one thing to think that there should be a

> strategy for encouraging people out of cars (I'd

> agree) and another to just close one or two roads

> (regardless off the knock on effects). This is not

> going to lead to a step change in car use, it's

> just going to concentrate the impact of cars in

> certain areas.

That's why an area wide strategy is required, definitely just closing one road won't do it. But once one road is closed, why not look at how the additional traffic in other areas can be dealt with by more road closures (as I suggested earlier, for example, closing off some of the toastrack roads to keep traffic on the main arteries) rather than just campaigning to reopen that road? All reopening Camberwell Grove bridge will do is concentrate the impact of cars back in that area, that won't lead to a change in car use either.

Nobody has mentioned in this discussion the effect (back on topic, taper) the bridge closure has had on the traffic outside DKH primary school - where once there were queues stretching back to the Grove and beyond, now it's rare to see more than a couple of cars waiting at the lights. A before and after comparison of playground pollutant levels would have been interesting.

[taper]

"An area wide strategy" is out of scope of this consultation. The issue is does the road remain closed at that point or open to one lane of traffic. Why don't Southwark Cyclists suggest a wider strategy is needed and remain neutral on the issue of Camberwell Grove bridge? Otherwise, they fund themselves in the invidious position of supporting greater danger for cyclists using routes east of CG.

[sally buying]

taper Wrote:

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

> This is getting way way off topic.

Is any body really surprised?

[first mate]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> > It's one thing to think that there should be a

> > strategy for encouraging people out of cars

> (I'd

> > agree) and another to just close one or two

> roads

> > (regardless off the knock on effects). This is

> not

> > going to lead to a step change in car use, it's

> > just going to concentrate the impact of cars in

> > certain areas.

>

> That's why an area wide strategy is required,

> definitely just closing one road won't do it. But

> once one road is closed, why not look at how the

> additional traffic in other areas can be dealt

> with by more road closures (as I suggested

> earlier, for example, closing off some of the

> toastrack roads to keep traffic on the main

> arteries) rather than just campaigning to reopen

> that road? All reopening Camberwell Grove bridge

> will do is concentrate the impact of cars back in

> that area, that won't lead to a change in car use

> either.

>

> Nobody has mentioned in this discussion the effect

> (back on topic, taper) the bridge closure has had

> on the traffic outside DKH primary school - where

> once there were queues stretching back to the

> Grove and beyond, now it's rare to see more than a

> couple of cars waiting at the lights. A before

> and after comparison of playground pollutant

> levels would have been interesting.

The problem is you are not trying to persuade by road closure you are forcing. Some of your arguments in terms of pollution levels etc are persuasive and in time I think people who can cycle will be more and more inclined to do so when they can but for now let's keep a main road into and out of the area open for use by the majority, not only a highly vocal minority who think they know best.

[Earl Aelfheah]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> That's why an area wide strategy is required,

> definitely just closing one road won't do it. But

> once one road is closed, why not look at how the

> additional traffic in other areas can be dealt

> with by more road closures (as I suggested

> earlier, for example, closing off some of the

> toastrack roads to keep traffic on the main

> arteries) rather than just campaigning to reopen

> that road? All reopening Camberwell Grove bridge

> will do is concentrate the impact of cars back in

> that area, that won't lead to a change in car use

> either.

This is just not a sensible way to do things. It may be that closing Camberwell Grove to traffic can be justified as part of a Borough wide plan - but it seems unlikely imo, that an opportunistic intervention, driven by vested interests of a handfall of residents is likely to have chanced upon the best possible solution to traffic issues across the wider area. We need some proper analysis and a consideration of the knock on effects / impacts on traffic in the surrounding area of closing the road. Don't the council get paid to do this stuff?

[Beulah]

^That's a very reasonable point.

There was a plan for some traffic calming measures around the Bellenden Rd area that now appears to have been dropped.

That may have had some study of traffic flows in the wider area.

[spider69]

They have been taking readings before the bridge was closed and after the bridge was closed on all traffic in surrounding areas.

This will be used in their deliberations to open or keep closed. Will common sense prevail

This is done on a routine basis. Has anyone not noticed the black rubber lines across roads into a monitoring box.

Result. massive increases on all roads all round.

Chadwick Road/Grove Park up 98% because of the bridge closure, the rest all up hugely.

Roads like water need need to flow not be restricted.

[rendelharris]

spider69 Wrote:

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

> Roads like water need need to flow not be

> restricted.

Interesting simile - if the Thames was allowed to flow unrestricted large parts of London would have been flooded by now...instead roads have been allowed to flow unrestricted and large parts of London are choked...

[Abe_froeman]

This consultation is not going to result in any changes at all to the overall traffic management in London

It has a binary outcome of either 1) improving living conditions for a few very wealthy households at the cost of continued nuisance and pollution for a far larger number of residents on the alternative routes (and of course the children attending the schools and nurseries bordering those congested roads) or 2) putting things back to how they were very recently for less than ?20,000.

That is about the same money as the council recently spent on a survey to have a think about changing speed humps yellow lines and a junction buildout in melbourne grove.

I would urge anyone who suffers from the congestion caused by this bridge closure and the domino effect to respond to the consultation and ask for it to be reopened.

[James Barber]

One correction. Camberwell Grove is neither an A or B road. So it is not a 'main road'. It may well be a convenient road to drive into/out of town.

Camberwell Grove has over 1,000 residents. So the air quality improvement to this residential road must be marked of limiting motor vehicles access.

I'd encourage everyone to register their views and respond to the formal consultation - for or against - reopening or keeping closed to through traffic.

Final thought on this from me. Towns and cities that want to maximise people walking and cycling often create blocks with one way in and out for motor vehicles but very porous for walking and cycling. They see a factor increase in people walking and cycling. But it ensures motor vehicles access for those with a real need -http://urbanaccessregulations.eu

I would like to see this road open but only to Southwark residents during rush hour - and the same on other current rat run streets - Chadwick, Lyndhurst etc. Sadly that's not on offer so keep the closure for now.

[taper]

"...so keep the closure for now."

Well that would certainly help keep your personal cycle commute more pleasant. As you noted earlier. But what do you say to the residents of nearby roads whose traffic levels have increased hugely since the closure?

[rollflick]

Is it just me or has anyone else picked up that the consultation is not about reopening the bridge to all traffic (so 5+ years ago) or even pre October 2016 (7.5t weight and 7'2" width restriction)? It's about lowering the weight limit to 3t and narrowing it to 6'6" because this ancient bridge was not designed for the weight of motor vehicles.

Besides meaning many of the vehicles that are currently diverting onto other routes would have to continue to divert, the narrowing at both ends will significantly increase the likelihood of drivers getting stuck (and with it road rage), particularly for the left turn out of McNeil Road. It will also slow drivers down considerably, increasing queuing and exhaust fumes.

The big problem though is that Southwark's plan for the 3t weight restriction did not take into account some of the largest changes to vehicle weights since the UK joined what was then the EEC in the 1970s. First new weight rules came into force on 1 October to enable all types of vans (small and large) to become heavier: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/vans-to-go-greener-and-cleaner-under-new-plans

Second the Toxicity-charge coming into force next week is going to significantly increase the average weight of cars, as drivers upgrade to hybrid & electric vehicles (as much as 30% heavier) to avoid paying it. The combination of heavier vehicles and drivers going at a crawl through the narrower restriction is likely to mean the 3t limit is frequently breached and to knacker the bridge again in no time. There's no legal way to prevent vehicles closely following other than allowing one in each direction at a time through special signals or to employ two PCs to stand there to direct traffic.

Have flagged this to council officers over the summer but nothing has changed, I suspect due to political pressure to get something happening before the May 2018 local elections. The consultation risks becoming a farce as the so-called reopening option is neither viable nor safe beyond the very short term: people should have been given enough facts and options to be able to make informed comment.

[intexasatthe moment]

James I'm not sure who you're correcting about Camberwell Grove being a main road but I'm not sure the introduction of road classifications is helpful here .

A and B road classifications don't seem to help the layperson when thinking about the importance of a route .My reading is that the volume of traffic would determine a roads designation as a B road rather than it's width etc .So I guess at present Lyndhurst Grove might be considered to be more of a B road ( main road in your view ? ) than Camberwell Grove because it's currently carrying more traffic than the latter .

"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."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain_road_numbering_scheme