Southwark consultation on Peckham gyratory

[jazzer]

Only time will tell one they have done the works the planners want, not necessarily the residents and actual users, careful what you wish for, plus all the inconvenience whilst it is done. 

[malumbu]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

I found the aborted plan from 2020.

APPENDIX 1 PECKHAM RYE.pdf 546.35 kB · 8 downloads

But only when private schools are off right Mal? Or not off….

More silly jibes. I expect the Rye doesn't seem the same level of private school traffic as Dulwich Common. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 12/02/2025 at 08:38, Marguerita98 said:

It seems to me that there will be a large volume of traffic displacement (including lorries) through East Dulwich and Lordship Lane particularly at busy times, as a result.  Link to consultation and the survey here:

If anything, won't this divert traffic travelling East alongside the rye, further away from ED and LL, via consort road? There aren't really any changes to travel up the west side of the rye for motor vehicles from what I can tell (?).

Improvements for pedestrians I welcome - making crossing easier and widening some pavements. The triangle is now quite a fashionable little area, with a lot of foot traffic, so that seems like a good thing.

It will presumably also be better for buses travelling south, and having segregated bike lanes (separating cycles and motor vehicles), seems better for both.

Feels like it will improve the experience of those walking, cycling and using public transport, with minimal impact on drivers, from what I can tell at least.

Edited February 14 by Earl Aelfheah

[rollflick]

23 hours ago, Spartacus said:

One question that needs to be understood about both sections that proposals for changes for buses, is "are there currently problems that cause major delays alreay?" 

Granted buses can be slow going north towards Rye Lane however often it is caused by either other buses at the Nigel Riad bus stop or the junction with Heaton Road which causes tail backs. 

The north side of Peckham Rye (proposed bus gate between Scylla Road and Nunhead Lane ) never strikes me as a busy section but I don't traverse it often. However it does look like they are rerouting the 342, p12 and 78 northbound along it, removing their stop at the corner of East Dulwich Riad and Peckham Rye (a good spot for changing from a 37, 12, 197, 63 and 363 to the other buses, now forcing the change at the Nigel Road stop) 

I guess the current flow patterns need to be understood to make sense of this proposal and questions raised over passenger preferences on buses as well. 

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...

[Earl Aelfheah]

4 hours ago, rollflick said:

According to TfL bus data (attached - a few years old but no big changes)

@rollflick - you may well be right in your comments generally - I do agree that the council should provide a lot more info, that they could be more ambitious. I would point out though that Rye Lane is now bus only, which is quite a significant change made in the last few years. This may have changed things in terms of bus times running north, I don't know. Again, a good reason for the council to provide more info with which to judge the changes.

Whether the proposals address the most pressing issues / prioritise correctly though, possibly not.

All that said, I can't see anything in the proposed changes which makes things fundamentally worse, and quite a lot of small improvements which should be welcomed.

Edited February 14 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

19 hours ago, malumbu said:

I expect the Rye doesn't seem the same level of private school traffic as Dulwich Common. 

Ha ha, you'll be pleased to know that private schools are now off! 😉

 

BTW I presume Southwark Cyclists haven given their blessing to these new measures..;-)...I read the document form 2020 and laughed when I read the below as this was the infamous document where the council rolled over to accommodate the requests of Southwark Cyclists but ignored the input from the emergency services.....and was the first sign of who was pulling the council's strings....

 

Southwark Cyclists Southwark cyclists are in favour of the cycling improvementsin this area. They requested some added cycling road markings and a minimum width of 1.2m for the segregated lane. We have accommodated all the suggestions from Southwark cyclists.

[malumbu]

Good result.  As a cyclist how would you suggest that section of road could be improved?  I'm waiting with bates breath ...

[ab29]

And at the same time nothing is done for pedestrians which should be a priority

Edited February 15 by ab29

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 14/02/2025 at 21:17, ab29 said:

And at the same time nothing is done for pedestrians which should be a priority

Have you looked at the proposal? It will create new crossings and will widen and declutter existing pavements. 

Edited February 17 by Earl Aelfheah

[march46]

5 new pedestrian crossings is a pretty awesome win for pedestrians.

Edited February 17 by march46

[first mate]

Not if cyclists whizz through them, as many seem to do. Similarly, the widened pavements will only be a win for pedestrians if cyclists stay off them...let's wait and see. 

Edited February 18 by first mate

[march46]

Let’s not turn this into another anti-cycling thread. 

[Penguin68]

What, as opposed to all the other threads being turned into procycling threads by a small group of enthusiasts? I don't think anyone has expressed any general anti-cycling views, they have all been specificly addressed to a few behaviors of sadly increasingly many people who do cycle. And many, including mine, have addressed behaviours which offer genuine risks to cyclists, such as cycling without lights, reflective clothing or attention. 

[Happyme5]

Cyclists do cause a lot issues. Especially the ones who speed, ignore red lights and shout at you as you simply try to navigate a pathway or crossing.  Cyclists do need to be held to account for their dangerous behaviors.   I personally would like all cyclists to be licensed and insured.  Walking is no longer an enjoyable experience.   My elderly Mum is really scared of bikes.   I have nearly been run down by cyclists many times.  Bikes do cause a lot of damage when they hit you.   Plus the lack of law enforcement surrounding cyclists on pavements which is associated with crime.   So personally I do not wish for cyclists to have more routes   crossing the road is impossible already.  Cyclists seem to think they can just take over roads, crossings, lanes and pavements.  

Edited February 18 by Happyme5
Addition

[malumbu]

Let's not turn this into another anti-cycling thread

[first mate]

Or try to listen and take into account the views and experiences of others, even if they do not accord with your own.

Edited February 18 by first mate

[malumbu]

So do you agree that there should be a cycle lane?  If not, why not.

[Happyme5]

I don't think there should be more lanes for cyclists.  I think there needs to be some legislation around cyclists/cycling.  Then when there are proper laws in place to enforce sensible behavior by cyclists.  I think it would be a good time to explore the expansion of cycling lanes.  Not all cyclists are respectful or safe to ba around.  

[Earl Aelfheah]

So in summary, people want to discourage bicycles. And until there are fewer people travelling by bicycle, any action to improve things for pedestrians are futile? Yup, that's pretty standard for the 'roads and transport' section. 

...because it's definitely people using bicycles, and people using cars, that are serious injuring and killing thousands of pedestrians each year.

Edited February 18 by Earl Aelfheah

[malumbu]

49 minutes ago, Happyme5 said:

I don't think there should be more lanes for cyclists.  I think there needs to be some legislation around cyclists/cycling.  Then when there are proper laws in place to enforce sensible behavior by cyclists.  I think it would be a good time to explore the expansion of cycling lanes.  Not all cyclists are respectful or safe to be around.  

So your views are that until there is an improvement in cycling standards there should be no new cycle lanes.  Thanks for your honesty.  I suggest that you respond to the consultation appropriately

It would good to hear your blueprint for achieving this - would this be cyclist or bike registration, or both?   Would there be age limits?  And what would you do if cyclists are underage - or would they be prohibited from cycling in public spaces?  Would there be a cycling test?  Would bicycles need to be MOT'd.  What about people building their own bikes, including using parts from other bikes?  What about grey imports? 

Enforcement - who will do this, police through existing powers, local authorities through new powers.  Would this be self funding?  And what about the upfront costs?

[jazzer]

Cycle to your hearts content, but DON'T infringe your passion on others or interfere in their way of life.

[snowy]

Pedestrians, walk to your heart's content but DON'T infringe your passion on others or interfere in their way of life.

[Penguin68]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

So in summary, people want to discourage bicycles.

Has anyone, anywhere on these pages, argued that.? Discouraging poor and/ or illegal  behaviour of cyclists - yes, absolutely, as I would the poor behaviour of any road user. Unless, of course, you believe that all roads (and pavements?) should be open only to cyclists, and all behaviour of cyclists warmly encouraged and supported, whatever that might be? In which case...

Of course, if you do believe that cyclists should be the only ones using roads locally, in which case perhaps they should be the only ones paying for them? As opposed to the only ones not doing so - at least as regards the (albeit unhypothecated) tariffs on powered users of roads.

[snowy]

All taxpayers paid for the roads. VED is applied depending on the emissions of your vehicle and doesn't cover the cost of road building or maintenance. 

[malumbu]

37 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

Has anyone, anywhere on these pages, argued that.? Discouraging poor and/ or illegal  behaviour of cyclists - yes, absolutely, as I would the poor behaviour of any road user. Unless, of course, you believe that all roads (and pavements?) should be open only to cyclists, and all behaviour of cyclists warmly encouraged and supported, whatever that might be? In which case...

Of course, if you do believe that cyclists should be the only ones using roads locally, in which case perhaps they should be the only ones paying for them? As opposed to the only ones not doing so - at least as regards the (albeit unhypothecated) tariffs on powered users of roads.

So do you also think that there should be no new cycle paths until cycling standards improve? 

It would be interesting to apply this to new roads!  I feel a letter coming on to our MP