Camberwell Grove rail bridge consultation

[LynnB]

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.

[rendelharris]

rupert james Wrote:

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

> 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.

Do you have figures to substantiate your rebuttal, or just "what a load of rubbish"? Equally, if Sally is following this thread, perhaps we could see the evidence for Southwark Cyclists' figures? Otherwise it's just name calling.

[rupert james]

Unlike you I happen to live on the road. I see what is happening every day.

Perhaps you might like to get off your bike and knock on every residence and ask what the problem is. You might be surprised.

Not only do we have vast amounts of traffic we also have no parking due to the recent implementing of the "toastrack" CPZ.

I am sure there are figures that can be produced but they cover 1 week out of 52 or 1 week out of 26.

Meaningless

The real situation does not revolve around figures for week

[rendelharris]

In other words, no you don't have any figures and reject those (helpfully quoted by rollflick above, which prove SC's assertion is correct) which prove you wrong? Glad that's clear.

[richard tudor]

Like Rupert James I would like to hear from you when you have knocked on Chadwick Road residents and asked them what the problem is really like.

A 1 week survey to my mind means zip.

Figures produced for a short period means nothing. A survey over 1/2/3 months would reveal a great deal more.

Glad you feel you are yet again right. Did I ever doubt it

[rendelharris]

Ah, good to see you back Richard and as ready for reasonable debate as ever - how's Dullywood?

Care to explain why the figures gathered in that week would be significantly different to any other week?

[richard tudor]

Very simple. Traffic patterns change.

Not difficult to understand. Life changes on a daily basis. Each day is has its own pattern.

I am surprised you could not see that.

Please let me and forum know the result of your house to house survey.

Who is Dullywood?

[rendelharris]

I'm sure had the survey figures supported your case you would not be questioning it. But hey, I have no right to comment as I have not, to my shame, actually conducted a door-to-door survey.

With regards to your final question, why ask questions to which you know the answer?

[richard tudor]

As I recall, but cannot like you spend time going through old posts, I am sure I have previously said I have no idea who Dullywood is.

Up up and away with the clipboard and door knocking.

Have other things to do now, goodnight.

[LynnB]

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.

[rendelharris]

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.

[rupert james]

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.

"Unlike you I happen to live on the road. I see what is happening every day.

Perhaps you might like to get off your bike and knock on every residence and ask what the problem is. You might be surprised.

Not only do we have vast amounts of traffic we also have no parking due to the recent implementing of the "toastrack" CPZ.

I am sure there are figures that can be produced but they cover 1 week out of 52 or 1 week out of 26.

Meaningless

The real situation does not revolve around figures for week"

Is this not what I said?

[rendelharris]

You did. And in your earlier post you said "What a load of rubbish" in reply to Southwark Cyclists' assertion that traffic remains 2.5x higher outside DKH primary than on Chadwick Road, on the basis that you live on the road. Where are your figures? If you have contradictory evidence I'd be delighted to see it and would be happy to change my mind accordingly. As I said above, I don't know if it alters the case for opening the bridge or retaining the closure, but just saying "what a load of rubbish" in response to actual facts doesn't advance the debate very far, does it? What was so different about the week of the study to any other week - not in terms of numbers, but ratios?

[rupert james]

What a load of rubbish referred to Chadwick week being the quietest road not ratios or % beloved by Councils

Please go knock on doors and ask residents views on traffic on a day to day basis you then might change your mind.

It wont involve your beloved stats.

As I have said 1 weeks figures are meaningless.

To save you further posts, as usual you can accept victory and move on to other posts.

[taper]

Chadwick Road is a back street. Comparing it with the road outside DKH school is bogus and irrelevant. The data shows that closing the bridge has thrown a lot of extra traffic down Lyndhurst Grove and other streets, including Chadwick where traffic levels have spiked.

We know the impact on people using and living on those streets has been negative. I used to live on Lyndhurst Grove. And when the bridge was last closed is was truly awful. Camberwell Grove with the traffic reduced to one lane is a good compromise given CG?s width and houses set back from the road.

I?m still stunned that Southwark Ctyclists support it remaining closed. They seem to have been utterly played by the residents. Or perhaps a few leading lights in the organisation use that route a lot. Either way, they have done their reputation a lot of damage in my eyes.

[peckham_ryu]

taper Wrote:

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

>

> I?m still stunned that Southwark Ctyclists support

> it remaining closed. They seem to have been

> utterly played by the residents. Or perhaps a few

> leading lights in the organisation use that route

> a lot. Either way, they have done their reputation

> a lot of damage in my eyes.

A lot of cyclists are singlemindedly obsessed with journey speed. The current arrangement means no waiting at traffic lights, so it may shave a crucial minute off the journey time, often with no annoying stop/start moment on the uphill journey.

On the Chadwick Road issue, motorists using the road as a rat run are often speeding far too fast. This is nothing new, it?s just that there are more of them now. It?s both dangerous and noisy: I?m tempted to lobby for a bobby with a speed gun, if they still do that.

[taper]

Thing is, as I noted earlier, I used to cycle up CG during morning rush hour, with a child trailer behind me (with child in it!), and then back down during the evening rush hour. The one lane arrangement regulated the flow of traffic and made it perfectly safe. But you're right, coming down the hill, you often had to stop (the horror).

[LynnB]

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.

[Bopster]

So much for the consultation.

Permanent diversion signs have been installed on Lyndhurst Grove and Lyndhurst Way.

[ollieloudon]

Yeah permanent bridge closed sign up also

[Siduhe]

The consultation closed two days ago - is this when the signs first went up? If so, that implies an astonishing disregard for the consultation process.

[taper]

Truly astonishing decision, if this is indeed the decision.

[Earl Aelfheah]

If that is the outcome, I am far from surprised. The consultation was (sadly) always an irrelevance.

[LynnB]

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.

[Bopster]

This has spurred me on to kick up a stink