Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Rye Lane was shut without consultation to traffic because of covid to allow greater self distancing, well it can be re-opened just as quickly without consultation as well. Why should I be inconvenienced to walk from the Heaton Arm's to the bottom of Rye Lane to go to the Aylsham or to Lidl and then have to walk back with two bags of shopping. Why not re-instate the buses as they were before?


Southwark have failed on several occasions already to close of the lane to traffic when they installed the non working pop up and down bollards, then the fiasco of the gas mains being replaced and before that Thames Water. All resulted in the closure of Rye Lane and great inconvenience to a lot of people.


The closure is slowly killing the remaining businesses in Rye Lane, the snooker hall closed because it was difficult to get deliveries, the Post Office closed as well, people no longer feel safe at night, the graffiti "artists" are having a field day there.


The traffic has been moved from Rye Lane to Copeland Road 24hrs a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, how do you think they feel about all the extra traffic they now have to endure? Moving the extra traffic from one road to another Ain't the answer or the solution.


You may not mind the inconvienience but guess what, I do, so BrInG bACk ThE BuSeS.

Alice, there are plenty of threads elsewhere to show your displeasure at Southwark, the Dulwich LTNs and your chip on your shoulder about Dulwich Villagers. Jazzer, you straplines are doing my head in, I am looking for some subliminal messages but not sure. The Post Office closed four years ago before Covid. Replacing utilities is nothing to do with closing roads for traffic. Rye Lane was not a through road in any case. Such views are rather mistaken.

I used to go to a number of shops in Rye Lane ,Asda ,Khans ,One Below ,Mighty Pound ,Iceland , Morrisons ,Pound Stretcher ,Lidls . I enjoyed browsing and looking for the best deals .Lots of walking and I stretched myself .But I could manage because I could access a bus if I needed to.


I would only use the bus stop in Peckham High St by the Nat West in extremis because of the narrowness of the pavement ,crowding ,pollution and would stagger round to Rye Lane if I possibly could .


I don't browse anymore .I don't catch the train from Peckham Rye or pop into Iceland to pick up dinner when returning from an outing .


Now I drive to Morrisons/Lidls and struggle with Denmark Hill station .I dont want to drive ,I want to be able to hop on and off buses .


I'm sure it's hard to imagine if you're young and fit, but when you're older you have less stamina and strength . You have to ration your physical activities .200m ,400m might seem nothing to many but to many others it's the last straw in being able to cope .Particularly if you have a lot of shopping .


No doubt people with young children and those that have a disability feel the same .

Malambu


"Jazzer, you straplines are doing my head in", Well ain't that a shame


"I am looking for some subliminal messages but not sure." - Their are none.


"The Post Office closed four years ago before Covid". - Yes


"Replacing utilities is nothing to do with closing roads for traffic." Yes it is when it resulted in the Lane being closed to through traffic


"Rye Lane was not a through road in any case". WrOnG, yes it WaS


"Such views are rather mistaken." No they aren't

intexasatthemoment


Agree with you entirely - 400 hundred m with even light shopping is tiring for me. Arthritis in knees, hips and back mean that unless dosed up with pain killers etc 200 m is more likely my maximum. I could manage a walk from HSBC/Primark upto stop by Khans to get bus back home, And would often get of at the station to walk down to Boots/Argos etc and pick up 12/197 near Primark back.

malumbu Wrote:

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

> Alice, Jazzer, it would be great to hear what your

> perspective is. I've posted plenty on the LTN

> threads about my views on the need to reduce road

> traffic. Mainly met with deaf ears. And often

> criticism that I don't live in East Dulwich. I

> can almost spit into SE22. I live further away

> from Peckham, and I expect that you don't live

> there either. But like Lordship Lane I use the

> Rye for shopping, and I have will have similarly

> been 'inconvenienced' by road closures. But I

> choose to see the benefits. Why are you so

> resistance to change? Are you simply entitled

> motorists? Or do you have other reasons?? I

> don't get it. And I don't buy this argument that

> it is all about those less mobile.


malumbu, this is at least the second time that you've (deliberately?) conflated the wish to bring back buses to Rye Lane with bringing back all traffic. Please don't do it again. Anyone advocating increased cycling/walking at the expense of the private motorist will not help their case by being "anti bus".

Well not intentionally, the point was that closing Rye Lane to through traffic (mainly buses) should not lead to significant congestion elsewhere. I also see this thread as more opportunity by some to 'bash' Southwark, continuing many of the threads on the East Dulwich section. I'm not anti-bus, and use them, including occasional commuting on the 185 (before 8 when the school run made it too congested) into Victoria sitting reading my book glad that I was not on a crowded train.


1. I like the idea of pedestrianising shopping areas. It's been common for a number of decades. I'd like the street to be re-laid to both improve both the aesthetics and how the space is used/managed.

2. I've acknowledged the need for access for those that need it, but feel that others are using this as an argument just to oppose new traffic measures

3. I've discussed cycle access, I don't see any easy alternatives to cycling through Rye Lane. It was my commuting route for 20 years and I will continual to carefully use this route. I've seen little conflict between bike and pedestrians, of course sadly it happens but please don't blow out of all proportion.

4. Rye Lane was blighted by a few selfish shoppers/drivers, who parked on the double yellows, and blocked buses. I raised this with Southwark, but got nowhere, I was disappointed that the parking attendants seemed so impotent. But I did get some good data from Southwark about enforcement through an FOI, which showed a significant number of FPNs were issued - although didn't seem to deter the double yellow lane parkers. This road was supposedly no access to cars but never felt that way. I am glad the illegal parking has stopped.

5. I was also disappointed that the curb on final part of the Rye, going down to the crossing, is so damaged due to buses mounting the pavement. I took this up with Southwark and TfL but got nowhere.


I'm a user of Rye Lane as a shopper, for occasional socialising and for transport. It's good to chat about the issues. I'm not campaigning on this either way.

I agree that pedestrianisation can help in some places, but Rye Lane just does not seem right for it, especially the bit from the station to the start of Peckham Rye (ie. Tesco area). I think pedestrianisation here would make it even more unwelcoming, especially at night where there would be no passing traffic of any kind. I like the idea of cleaner air but life is a compromise, so aiming for really low particulates at the expense of life and bustle and a sense of safety and access to transport isn't on. Buses are getting cleaner, trees can be planted and both will help keep pollutants low, much lower than if cars and vans were allowed. Rye Lane has seen better days and I hope that perfection (ie. NO cars, NO emissions) won't be chased because it means bad results in other areas (like sense of liveliness, safety, etc.)

just trying to think where there are pedestrianized shopping areas. Lewisham - no but they have the centre, Catford - no but they have the centre, Penge - no, Beckenham- no, Camberwell- no, Walworth road - no.


Peckham needs to have buses running down it's shopping area, Admittedly bad parking did snarl up the traffic but some short term parking bays (30 mins max) could help shoppers who need to transport heavy goods.

malumbu, you still need to explain why Peckham Rye station shouldn't have bus stops outside. When I lived at the bottom end of Barry Road and commuted into Farringdon, I either walked to and from the station or, if running late or it was p*ssing down, I'd jump on the 12 or the 63. Local commuters who lived further away than that (eg top of of Barry Road) would get the bus every day.

Peckham Rye is a busy SE London hub, serving London Bridge, Blackfriars and beyond, Victoria, Croydon, Bromley, Sevenoaks etc etc. There's no equivalent busy station that does not have buses outside. It's called integrated public transport which, for a busy city, is probably more important than improving cycling and walking.

malumbu Wrote:

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

> ?my point was that many of you

> use this, air quality and other factors as the

> reason you oppose anything that restricts

> vehicles.


It is notable how some people have suddenly become very concerned about pollution. Not enough to give up their car, but enough to campaign against schemes that make driving less convenient.

JohnL Wrote:

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

> I'm 90% sure that once the works at the station

> are completed buses will be allowed through Rye

> Lane (but no cars).

>

>

> I have no insider information though :)


Today all Peckham busses seem to be diverted through East Dulwich. Good luck

spider69 Wrote:

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

> JohnL Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I'm 90% sure that once the works at the station

> > are completed buses will be allowed through Rye

> > Lane (but no cars).

> >

> >

> > I have no insider information though :)

>

> Today all Peckham busses seem to be diverted

> through East Dulwich. Good luck



Got caught by that twice today as I had an Office visit. I think Consort Road is shut due to the shooting.

Pedestrianised my local high street years ago, before that a congested A road went straight through it. Catford and Lewisham both have pedestrianised areas, well away from the stations, which aren't conveniently located. Question is how important connectivity is vs streets for people. I expect for some the convenience of the bus stop and station collocated is useful for commuting, which may or may not be good for the local high street (depending on how much trade that brings in.


Here's some of the world's best pedestrianised areas - wouldn't Peckham be great if it was like New Orleans for example!


https://www.afar.com/magazine/the-10-best-pedestrian-streets-around-the-world

Your argument doesn't stand as both Lewisham and Catford have bus services close to the shopping areas.

Suggest you must try harder in future when picking such poor examples.

Now back to the matter in hand, with both Consort Road temporarily closed due to a shooting at the weekend, and Rye Lane closed, where is all the traffic diverting, that's right straight through East Dulwich making the situation there a thousand times worse. Simple, if Rye Lane was open this would not be the case.

It's time to stop the inconvenience and re-open Rye Lane BEFORE it turns into a ghost town, where are The Specials when you need them???

Yesterday ,Monday ,the 63s heading towards Honor Oak/Crystal Palace ( or maybe 363?) were turning round in Peckham Bus garage and travelling to Camberwell ,Dog Kennel Hill ,Goose Green and rhen down East Dulwich Road ,turning right at the common to resume route .


It worked well .

  • 1 month later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Does anyone know when the next SNT meeting is? I am fed up with my son being mugged on East Dulwich Grove! 
    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...