rollflick

Getting back to the pros and cons of the actual scheme, yes the council has made some improvements like pedestrianising the road outside the Nag's Head and helpfully they have provided more information. But it's still a badly thought out scheme with major show stoppers, a bigger rejig is needed to cope with baseline traffic changes, let alone Southwark's ambitions for more people to move from driving to healthy travel. And compared to what other boroughs (let alone other European countries) are doing, it's a massively missed opportunity to transform the public realm of what is currently a big traffic island. That would genuinely help businesses and increase footfall. Some of the measures in the scheme are worth progressing now (northbound bus lane, Nag's Head pedestrianisation, zebra by Kinsale Road, trial the bus gate on the eastern side). But there are major issues with the proposals and its underlying modelling including: (1) TfL is about to massively rationalise bus services in inner London, so lots of the justification could be about to disappear with route changes. The scheme mainly benefits the 78 & P12 by moving them to the (already uncongested) eastern side, but that could happen without the scheme. And many bus services would take up to 50s longer. So the measures seem weak as a bus priority scheme (2) The modelling fails to mention cycling at all, even though it's growing hugely year-on-year. Maybe because officials know the scheme does not meet existing official standards, let alone provide space for any cycling growth. Especially for cycling, the junctions by Scylla and Nigel Road plus the bike crossing by Phillip Walk seem designed for outer London e.g. hopping on and off pavements & tight right angle turns, not hundreds of cycles an hour at peak times. East-west permeability remains poor for cycling too. Separately buses northbound turning after Scylla Rd in practice would often get stuck before reaching the bus lane, while moving the bus stop from the Tesco past the Nag's Head looks problematic. A better approach would be to remove the gyratory north of Scylla Road, relocating the bus stands etc. to create a longer northbound bus lane on the eastern side, enabling the western side north of Dewar St to be semi-pedestrianised with more space for tables plus two-way cycling with a track leading to/from Rye Lane. Moving the Scylla Road closure and also the bus gate next to the Angel Oak would also design out conflicting movements as well as create a better public space. This alternative needs a diagram to explain, don't think AI can do this yet. Sorry but while I agree the E Dulwich Rd junctions are unpleasant, I'm not persuaded by James Barber's point about frustrated drivers leading to more collisions, a lot of the time congestion will keep speeds down. The increased traffic forecast on the badly redesigned Bellenden Road could be an issue though. Interested to hear other views on the proposals.

So work has still not started in the station square. After years of delays we were told it would begin in summer 2025, then October, then January and now just "soon" / "this year". That means the new square is not going to open this year. Pretty poor that Southwark is unwilling to communicate any reasons for its continuing delays. Meanwhile for the station itself, Network Rail is moving forward with a minor scheme to reduce the crush but still with no lifts: https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/articles/peckham-rye-station-to-get-5m-makeover-while-waiting-for-step-free-rebuild-87172/

Seems a fair summary of the FoI to me and it does read like AI too. Also accurate from what I know of the context, repeated throughout the borough: residents on a particular street bid for Devolved Highways Budget funding for a specific scheme, it becomes a "ward priority" despite most people in a ward not knowing about it, then officers are forced to reactively respond to that rather than look through options, let alone align any proposals with council strategy. See my earlier post about SfP commitment to make Dunstan Road a walking and cycling route, instead it will now become more congested and unpleasant. Meanwhile key borough travel schemes take years to move forward, if at all. Sixteen years of the same political control has left us with an utterly dysfunctional council that whatever your loyalties clearly needs a reset. In response to @Malumbu about how to improve conditions for buses, walking and cycling here, there are very few effective options here other than: (1) parking controls along the routes, becoming ever more necessary as cars get wider, causing more frequent delays for buses like P13 and unpleasant conditions for people walking and cycling on narrower streets. (2) peak hour bus gate - see attached bus speed map showing how affected P13 currently is (darker colours mean slower speeds). The gate location could be by steps between Overhill and Hillcourt Roads, planned as part of strengthening the ecological corridor between Dulwich Park and One Tree Hill, along with area wide traffic measures. There are no credible alternatives to make a genuine difference for sustainable travel here, other than say road pricing, which anyway would need smaller measures like these first to improve alternatives. Creating space by cutting into front gardens to widen roads is not going to happen, fortunately. Indeed more broadly, there is an existential threat to bus services, following failings by the Mayor of London for years, even if often hidden by his PR wheezes. See latest here on new 3 yr plan to cut back services further: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/sadiq-khan-london-bus-subsidy-passengers-tfl-b1268550.html. "The level of bus subsidy had doubled in the last decade, from £659m in 2016/17 to £1.19 billion this year". Services like P13 that are low speed and served by smaller buses have higher subsidy needs. So the status quo is not an option: we'll see more bus routes dropping like flies and worse congestion unless there's decisive and rapid action, rather than more distractions.

"not currently a priority...[that is] a priority commitment for this year. We will try to do our best" Southwark's deepening dysfunction really shines through! That said, this is hardly new, in 2019 TfL derided the borough for not being able to prioritise nor having adequate governance in place. But isn't the biggest issue here is how Southwark is not planning traffic management holistically across areas, joining up thinking about its wider commitments like routes for buses, walking and cycling, let alone its targets to cut car use? Instead we see a street by street tussle around various acronyms (DHB=devolved highways budget), while most of the big pledges fall by the kerbside. It's three year's now since its Streets for People strategy made bold promises, then last January: "The Streets for People delivery plan follows on from the strategy and outlines what we will do from 2025 to 2030. It sets out to deliver the things you asked for, transforming streets and communities, improving walking and cycling routes and changing road layouts to improve bus journey times." Attached is the ward map for the Streets for People delivery plan. I'm all for trying new layouts etc. out but am struggling to see the sense of this or how this scheme aligns with that? Surely the priority should be cutting motor traffic on Underhill Road to help the P13 plus walking and cycling, then cutting traffic on Dunstan's Road, which is also an active travel route.

https://southwarknews.co.uk/news/news-plus/southwarks-cabinet-member-for-housing-resigns-after-not-having-the-same-licence-as-rachel-reeves/ You couldn't make it up. No wait, this is Southwark Council, let your imagination run wild. While he's done the right thing and resigned, cut and pasting Reeves' blame of the letting agent does not seem appropriate here and undermines his apology. I mean housing in Southwark was his day job, he really ought to have known about the licensing scheme. And he hadn't just moved out of what was his home a few months ago to take on a new very high pressured job like Reeves, these were his rental properties.

It's not about adding to bus routes rather the main spend is on bus priority, as otherwise the spiral of decline in inner London will continue, in other words further cuts to routes and frequencies. The aim is to cut journey times by 30%, so increasing average speed up from about 9mph to 12 mph, making buses more attractive as well as more economic to run. Apparently Southwark is focusing on what's been termed the South London Busway: the corridor is E&C - Walworth Road - Denmark Hill - Lordship Lane. Other slow sections of bus routes in the borough are either red routes like Old Kent Road and Tower Bridge Road (so for TfL to deal with rather than Southwark) or low frequency (e.g. P13 squeezing through ever wider parked cars).

A new roadmap (surely railmap?!) for rail accessibility has been published: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/accessible-railways-roadmap It says "approximately 56% of stations and around 66% of the 1.3 billion journeys that take place on the network have step-free access to platforms... "£373 million has been committed over the next 5 years to deliver Access for All projects, providing step-free access from station entrances to and between platforms, alongside other essential accessibility upgrades. These works, together, will increase the number of step-free stations across Great Britain from 56% to 58%. "This improvement will make travel easier with step-free access available at stations covering an increased share of total rail journeys – from 66% up to 71%" Don't know what that means for us here: upgrading Peckham Rye would cover a lot of rail journeys but the cost has no doubt increased from the £40m figure previously quoted. So that would eat into a lot of the funding.

Saw this Saturday morning, hope no one was hurt. At least the pillar on the roundabout escaped unscathed, unlike the one in West Norwood featured in another post.

Labour's latest Rye Lane Ward newsletter is now saying that demolition in the square will start this summer and that the wider station upgrade is expected to be signed off this year - as explained above, sadly wrong on both counts. It describes the renovation of adjacent buildings on Blenheim Grove as "successful", despite having lain empty for a couple of years, longer than the actual renovation works, before saying "the Council is hopeful [it] will see its first new occupants move in to this year". Cue desperate attempt to get at least one in before end of financial year? As for the other topic, in "November 2023, faced with a huge increase in graffiti across the borough, Labour-run Southwark council took action". Nice turn of phrase eh? Rather, after community pressure regarding years of inaction by said Labour-run council, it's finally started to do a little bit, a little late. Surely there would be more chance of resolving issues if our council could for once be part of an honest, informed discussion?

Yes, sad how Rye Lane has taken a dive, interesting to see those pics CPR Dave. It's shocking how the section between Choumert Road and the Nag's Head in particular has lost its vibrancy, meanwhile the next section to the top of Peckham Rye Common has gentrified. Wonder why such a distinction in fortunes? Anyway the station square plans have fallen behind yet again, demolition won't now start this summer. The only "work" that will now take place this summer is surveying of the arcade, which they've had 10 years since planning permission to do. At least the replacement TSB branch has progressed but the Blenheim Grove corner building still looks unfinished, despite claims it "is now complete". https://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-environment-and-building-control/current-and-future-development/peckham-and-nunhead-2

Yes let's not be distracted in this thread by national goings on, as local news has taken another twist today: https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/southwark/exclusive-southwark-labour-in-crisis-as-regional-party-orders-leadership-election-re-run-due-to-proxy-vote-rule-breach/ It's almost as if someone high up in the Labour Party is on this forum and learnt something new from this thread...

Yes it could be a massive improvement and useful to hear that contracts have finally been awarded. I totally understand though why doubts are expressed about when the new square will open. This 2012 BBC article about mayoral funding after the London 2011 riots says "In Southwark, which saw parts of Peckham hit by the rioters, there are plans to redevelop Peckham Rye station". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19167948 A decade later, the first phase on Blenheim Grove - the white buildings with the new roof deck - was kind of completed by summer 2022. Yet three years on those buildings are still covered with hoardings, gathering ever more graffiti. There has been no clear or coherent explanation from Southwark why, just some excuses of water ingress. How much rent must have been lost in that time and who has taken the resultant financial hit? In that context is it unreasonable to doubt that the new square will be fully opened next year - rather we'll get a fenced in walkway leading through an 80% completed square that we're forced to squeeze through for years to come? Dare I also remind people that the reality of what was built on Blenheim Grove didn't look as good as the renders. With construction inflation recently so high, it's valid to ask how the resultant funding gap for the main phases of this scheme will be bridged. It's not just Southwark's inability to manage major projects that are a concern but also its senior leadership's reluctance to be transparent about problems let alone make any visible efforts to tackle them.

According to TfL bus data (attached - a few years old but no big changes), the section of road where the bus only section is one of the freest flowing for buses of anywhere in Southwark, see attached screen grab. It's the other side of the common where there is congestion. Southwark consulted on a bus lane on the congested bit in 2016, consultation showed big support. So, nothing happened. https://web.archive.org/web/20220520112534/https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/peckham-rye-proposed-bus-lane/ This is a much bigger scheme and any half competent council would provide enough information for residents to make informed comment, like potential impact on bus times, a map showing route / stop changes, or indeed driving routes through the area. The consultation needs to be extended until Southwark provides that basic information. That said while this area does need big improvements but this scheme is terribly designed for all modes of transport, and fails to step change the tired public realm, which other London boroughs are doing so well. As an interim step the bus lane should go ahead while a coherent plan for the bus and cycle corridors is drawn up that this section would need to be designed to fit into. It's the fourth plan Southwark has come up with in this location in a decade (itself a sign of the massive waste and dysfunction in the Southwark highways team) and the worst so far. And to add insult to injury, despite an earlier consultation exercise last year raising important issues, Southwark officers have ignored responses, not even providing any feedback for their reasons. Don't hold your breath this time...

Yes there is certainly inconsiderate behaviour but the problem is made worse in the ED area due to the inadequate pavement width. See attached map, source is p13 in https://content.tfl.gov.uk/lsp-app-six-b-strategic-neighbourhoods-analysis-v1.pdf. Isn't it striking how much narrower pavements are across Southwark than neighbouring Lambeth for instance? That's why it was wrong for Southwark to limit the survey to just a few streets and why radical solutions to how rubbish & recycling are stored are needed. And yes maybe that includes some sort of ban on leaving bins out on narrow pavements. Plus perhaps underground communal bins like on the continent or maybe an interim solution of large bins replacing a car parking space or two.

This is another poorly designed Southwark survey, in this instance as: 1) The streets with the biggest issues are those where there's a difference in height between the front door and pavement, e.g. Malfort Road and ED end / west side of Bellenden Road (see attached image) and likewise Lyndhurst Way. That's because there's less likely to be level space in front gardens and they also have tiny pavements. But these streets are not listed in the survey and there's no "other" option to comment about them. 2) You're only supposed to respond for your own street - but many of us face regular difficulties using streets in the local area and are thereby shut out from the survey, allowing officials to keep ignoring legal duties on accessibility. Does anyone else think the issue has become worse in recent years as the refuse collection service seem to leave bins in a much more haphazard way (Veolia trying to maximise profit?), as well as some council communications telling people they now have to leave bins outside front gardens on the pavement. Whereas in the past refusepeople (or whatever binmen are called these days?!) would be prepared to take the extra second to take and put back bins from just inside front gardens. If you're away, the new approach of chucking bins down also highlights your home to burglars. Another problem is the amount of overgrowing plants from private properties. In other parts of London you get a letter from the council telling you to cut plants back, here staff and councillors seem too busy promoting Streets for People publicity to bother. The last year's wet weather has made the plant problem the worst I can remember. As a result the combination of some of London's narrowest pavements on top of poor management means Southwark has some of London's worst conditions for walking.