Rye Lane reopening to buses, but permanent closure still looms

[IainJ]

The Council Zoom meeting last night heard a lot of disparate views but the main take away was the presentation by Cllr Rose which showed that there were 7m passenger movements at Peckham Rye Station in the last full year before the pandemic, forecast to rise to 9.3m by 2036. This makes it one of the busiest stations outside the central London terminals, and if it lost its bus services it would be the only major interchange without seamless connectivity to its 9 current services. They are also delaying the opening for another two weeks to 18 October because of process issues.

Sydenham Hill was mentioned as having bus services 7 minutes away, but it has fewer movements, only two platforms and is deep in a cutting in the middle of the Dulwich estate - so hardly comparable.

A resident from north of Rye Lane pointed out that the distance from the nearest southbound bus stop to Peckham Rye Station on Clayton Road is also substantial - some 600m, 100m more than Nigel Road. This shows that people living there are potentially more disadvantaged by this proposal.

I must say the cyclist lobby were not very convincing, they just came over as anti buses and if they don't want to share roadspace there is a well established parallel quiet route around Rye Lane on Bellenden Road which I used since 1979 with only an occasional encounter with a P13. The Council seems at risk of losing sight of the important strategic issue, i.e., the need for seamless connectivity in public transport and getting itself tied up in an embroglio of peripheral concerns and anxieties.

I will circulate the presentation when I receive it, but the figures show very convincingly that Peckham Rye is such an important station that to remove bus services to the periphery of the town centre would be very damaging to the wider community and to the regeneration of Peckham.

It seems incredible given the data that the Council should even be consulting on this proposal. But if it does so it needs to ensure that all the voices are heard, not just the Rye Lane lobby.

[BrandNewGuy]

Again with my mantra of 'follow the money', the council were bunged central government cash to close Rye Lane, but none to reopen it. Hence their reluctance.

[Nigello]

Anyone remember the much-mouthed mantra of "integrated transport system" from Labour (especially Prescott) some 20+ years ago? Maybe the current councillors of all political colours should remember this, not least because it makes sense!

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

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

> Again with my mantra of 'follow the money', the

> council were bunged central government cash to

> close Rye Lane, but none to reopen it. Hence their

> reluctance.

Was the Rye Lane closure funded by central government? How much was received? How do you know it did not contain funding for re-opening?

[Sally Eva]

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

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

> BrandNewGuy Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Again with my mantra of 'follow the money', the

> > council were bunged central government cash to

> > close Rye Lane, but none to reopen it. Hence

> their

> > reluctance.

>

> Was the Rye Lane closure funded by central

> government? How much was received? How do you know

> it did not contain funding for re-opening?

The signs said it was funded by the EU to enable social distancing

[Rockets]

P3girl Wrote:

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

> kiera Wrote:

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

> -----

> > According to last night's zoom meeting, the

> > reopening of Rye Lane to buses will be on 18th

> > October. I only watched about half of it

> because

> > of problem with wi-fi and then zoom using up

> too

> > much of my mobile data.

> > Most of the audience's contributions seemed

> to

> > me to be from supporters of closure. I switched

> > off at the point where one such supporter was

> > emphasising how much better it is at the moment

> > for the disabled, as it's much easier for a

> > wheelchair user to use the road than the

> > pavement.

>

> I've attended several of Southwark's Zoom events

> in relation to road closures and they all follow a

> similar pattern which appears structured to (a)

> propagandise the "benefits" (b) limit the number

> of adverse questions:-

>

> 1. They started 14 minutes late.

>

> 2. Cllr Rose then spent 22 minutes giving a PP

> presentation about the Council's ambitions with

> closures. It was unnecessary propaganda.

>

> 3. The chair selected those who were allowed to

> ask questions. The very first question was from a

> campaigner from a cycling club. He rabbitted on

> and on about the virtues of closures. He came

> across as a deliberate plant.

>

> 4. Many of the other early public contributions

> were similar - not really questions but rather a

> rehash of Rose's monologue. They appeared to be

> pre-selected.

>

> 5. Rather than focus on questions from the public,

> the Chair regularly asked the other Councillors to

> make contributions and of course they responded by

> amplifying the pro-closure position

>

> It smacked of manipulation - similar to the biased

> questions in the LTN consultations where

> answering "Yes" to the question "Do you want fresh

> air and safe streets" was taken by them to mean

> support for LTN road closures.

>

> Blatant and unforgivable.

To be fair to the council at least they are being consistent as your summary of the meeting is so reflective of every other meeting they have ever organised in relation to LTNs - filibusters punctuated by the occasional input from a vested-interest group that lauds how wonderful the measures/council are!

[BrandNewGuy]

Sally Eva Wrote:

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

> Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

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

> -----

> > BrandNewGuy Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > Again with my mantra of 'follow the money',

> the

> > > council were bunged central government cash

> to

> > > close Rye Lane, but none to reopen it. Hence

> > their

> > > reluctance.

> >

> > Was the Rye Lane closure funded by central

> > government? How much was received? How do you

> know

> > it did not contain funding for re-opening?

>

>

> The signs said it was funded by the EU to enable

> social distancing

Part of the ?1.3 million they received for emergency Covid measures. There was no mention at the time that their removal was covered by those funds.

[heartblock]

If you have poor mobility and live in Southwark and depend on buses and other PT it appears that you are not that important to this Council. Cyclists though..Yea!

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

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

> Sally Eva Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > BrandNewGuy Wrote:

> > >

> >

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

>

> >

> > > -----

> > > > Again with my mantra of 'follow the money',

> > the

> > > > council were bunged central government cash

> > to

> > > > close Rye Lane, but none to reopen it.

> Hence

> > > their

> > > > reluctance.

> > >

> > > Was the Rye Lane closure funded by central

> > > government? How much was received? How do you

> > know

> > > it did not contain funding for re-opening?

> >

> >

> > The signs said it was funded by the EU to

> enable

> > social distancing

>

> Part of the ?1.3 million they received for

> emergency Covid measures. There was no mention at

> the time that their removal was covered by those

> funds.

So was it EU or UK funding? Do you have a source for that? I looked but couldn't see anything that identified an external source of funding for the Rye Lane works. Perhaps I'm using the wrong search terms.

It's just some painted lines and Jersey barriers, isn't it? Wouldn't have thought it would be very expensive to remove. If anyone has any reliable estimates of the cost, I'm happy to be corrected.

[BrandNewGuy]

https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/18533902.southwark-gets-1-3m-covid-19-transport-funding-tfl/

Includes both emergency cycle route funding and social distancing funding

[MarleyLover]

I want the buses go back down Rye Lane. I dislike the walk from Nigel Road to Rye Lane Station and vice versa - especially after working a 12 hour shift. I dislike having to walk amongst the inebriated on Friday/Saturday nights just so I can catch the next available bus to get home. The distance from Rye Lane Station to Peckham Bus Garage is just as long and also a great inconvenience. Are we going to have to do a demonstration to get this bus route back?

[oimissus]

I find it baffling. How can any council be against public transport? This is London, millions of us use public transport daily to get to work, school, visit family, go shopping, visit museums, galleries, theatres and museums.

And there is no way I would walk 600 metres down Rye Lane in the dark to catch a bus, something that not just those with reduced mobility can?t do, but many women and girls simply won?t do. But we know how many people get buses to Peckham Rye station, I just don?t understand why that?s not understood. Kieron Williams is pretty local, he must know this.

I don?t get it.

[Nigello]

MarleyLover - best to write to your councillors and MP( https://www.writetothem.com/ )and include name, address, phone number, email, with your concerns. It won't take long and it could make a difference.

[peckhamside]

To be fair the cycle route goes to the west of Rye Lane and comes out by Lidl. This is what I am using as dodging many pedestrians is not too great for cyclists either.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

oimissus Wrote:

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

> I find it baffling. How can any council be against

> public transport?

It's not against public transport. Rye Lane will reopen to buses (and taxis) shortly. Rye Lane was only pedestrianised because you couldn't have social distancing on the pavements AND run vehicles down the road.

The first post in this thread contains the completely fictitious claims that there will be "yet more consultations after 6 and 18 months on permanent closure" and "the Council is about to consult on a serious proposal to deny these and all other users direct access to bus services permanently". It's just not true. The council is not proposing to close Rye Lane to buses permanently.

https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/mixed-reactions-as-rye-lane-is-reopens-to-buses-and-taxis/

[IainJ]

No, Dogkennelhillbilly, it is exactly that. The Council is proposing to open Rye Lane on 18 October but will launch a further consultations including closure options after both 6 and 18 months.

[oimissus]

That Southwark News article doesn?t back up what your claiming, dogkennelhillbilly. The article states quite clearly that there will be further consultations after 6 and 18 months, and of course the reopening has been delayed since that article was published.

The arguments for the reopening to buses in the article are far more persuasive that those for it being kept closed.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

oimissus Wrote:

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

> That Southwark News article doesn?t back up what

> your claiming, dogkennelhillbilly. The article

> states quite clearly that there will be further

> consultations after 6 and 18 months,

Yes - that's totally correct. That's completely different from "the Council is consulting on total closure" and "the Council is proposing to totally close Rye Lane again", which is what OP claims.

[oimissus]

My point is that you claimed the 6 and 18 mont consultations were ?completely fictitious?. Now you?re saying ?that?s totally correct??

It seems a fair assumption that if they are planning to have further consultations, that means that they have not ruled out closing the street to buses again in the future.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

It is completely correct that there will be consultations in 6 and 18 months. It is completely fictitious that there will be "yet more consultations after 6 and 18 months on permanent closure" and "the Council is about to consult on a serious proposal to deny these and all other users direct access to bus services permanently".

This whole thread is predicated on a suggestion that is not true: that Southwark is proposing to permanently close Rye Lane.

[IainJ]

DKH, you have completely misunderstood the import of this.

Southwark is clear that it is proposing to consult again after 6 and 18 months and, as things stand, will include a complete closure and pedestrianisation option, i.e. the Council is seriously considering closing Rye Lane for good.

Permanent closure would mean it is the only major interchange station in Greater London (7m passengers a year, rising to 9.3m) without connecting bus services, pushing the stops to the periphery of the town centre, some 500m away to the south and 600m to the north, out of sight of the station.

I cannot believe that this is to be put forward as a serious option, and I hope when you wake up to it, neither will you.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

IainJ Wrote:

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

> I cannot believe that this is to be put forward as

> a serious option

Permanent closure hasn't been put forward as a serious option. The council has not proposed permanent closure. You are assuming or imagining that Southwark will propose permanent closure. There is no evidence for that. In fact, the council's last move (to reopen Rye Lane to buses and taxis) indicates the exact opposite. The scenario with which you began the thread is entirely invented by you.

I will not waste your time nor mine by discussing this further.

#SouthwarkDerangementSyndrome

[oimissus]

So why not just reopen Rye Lane and that?s the end of it? Why the repeated consultations? Is it because Southwark hope that if they ask the question enough times they?ll get the newer they want?

The fact of the 6 and 18 month consultations is evidence enough that permanently reopening Rye Lane is in question.

[richard tudor]

Just like Champion Hill. Consultation and closure for 18 months and then deferred for another 18 months because they

cannot find the right figure to keep it closed.

A recent consultation on Champion Hill showed 63% of people wanted it reopened.

[IainJ]

Exactly. I've written to Cllr Rose about this, and had no reply.

All she needs to say is Rye Lane is reopening to buses, and that the further consultations will only be on the detail, i.e. street furniture, enforcement, deliveries etc and I will be happy.

Until then, as I understand it, closure remains an option.