Southwark consultation on Peckham gyratory

[Earl Aelfheah]

55 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

So in summary, people want to discourage bicycles.

Has anyone, anywhere on these pages, argued that.?

I mean, obviously I'm paraphrasing and using a little comedic licence, but it's not far off:

6 hours ago, Happyme5 said:

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

There are people saying they don't want bike lanes. and all over this section, suggesting that cyclists represent an almost unique and singular danger to pedestrians (obviously they can pose a danger, but one that is several orders of magnitude smaller than that posed by motor vehicles, which people seem to be completely blind to).

And of course, the same people obsessed with speed limits for pedal bikes, are the same that complain about police enforcement in relations to motor vehicles.

Edited February 18 by Earl Aelfheah

[Happyme5]

It is simply my opinion that I feel is an important view in planning road development.   Legislation can be used in a positive way to protect all.   We all deserve to be safe 🙏 

[first mate]

5 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I mean, obviously I'm paraphrasing and using a little comedic licence, but it's not far off:

There are people saying they don't want bike lanes. and all over this section, suggesting that cyclists represent an almost unique and singular danger to pedestrians (obviously they can pose a danger, but one that is several orders of magnitude smaller than that posed by motor vehicles, which people seem to be completely blind to).

And of course, the same people obsessed with speed limits for pedal bikes, are the same that complain about police enforcement in relations to motor vehicles.

I think using comedic licence to spread distortions of what has actually been expressed is just spreading lies with a smiley face.

Which posters have said they don't want any enforcement against cars that break the law, but do want enforcement against bicycles? 

Who has said they only want speed limits for pedal bikes?

Perhaps you were just insinuating all that for comedic value too?

Edited February 18 by first mate

[Penguin68]

On 18/02/2025 at 16:02, malumbu said:

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

No, I don't think cyclist behaviour should be a criterion. But I do believe that cycle lanes, which occupy limited road space exclusively, should be allocated based on volumes of usage, especially for routes which do not reflect main commuter routes, and additionally, where there are cycle lanes then cyclists should be restricted to use those only, and not additionally spill out into lanes used by powered users. Oh dear, restricting cyclists - that won't go down well... 

[jazzer]

The least used cycle lane which I've seen is the one that runs along Sydenham from the roundabout at the top of the hill with the junction of Kirkdale to the other end with the junction of Crystal Palace Parade. I have never seen a single cyclist use it, what an absolute waste, of infrastructure and money. Seems some have no common sense and just follow the lead of oh, let's put a cycle lane in, even though no one will use it. Utterly ridiculous. Well done Lewisham Council, who I presume are responsible for it. All it actually does is reduce valuable road space and slow down traffic. 

And if the intention is to slow traffic to a snail pace, mission succeeded, if it is to annoy and frustrate other road users and passengers, mission accomplished. Did it save a life or make a difference, no, it's just inconvenient to everyone else. 

[Moovart]

3 hours ago, jazzer said:

The least used cycle lane which I've seen is the one that runs along Sydenham from the roundabout at the top of the hill with the junction of Kirkdale to the other end with the junction of Crystal Palace Parade. I have never seen a single cyclist use it, what an absolute waste, of infrastructure and money. Seems some have no common sense and just follow the lead of oh, let's put a cycle lane in, even though no one will use it. Utterly ridiculous. Well done Lewisham Council, who I presume are responsible for it.

Sydenham Hill is under Southwark, rather than Lewisham, all the way to the roundabout at Crystal Palace parade.

[CPR Dave]

Yes that cycle lane is only there to restrict parking and narrow the road to try to delay people's journeys.

[alice]

Any stats on its actual usage?

[Penguin68]

I doubt very much whether this is being measured at all, by anyone and particularly not Southwark. They've put it in to meet the needs of their lobbyists, no doubt at significant cost (let alone on costs to those disrupted by it) - job done! It's just anecdotal that many people who use that road haven't seen any cyclists using it (indeed any cyclists full stop). However I don't use it during any morning or evening rush, the most likely time for use, so I can't be definitive. That's not a road I would like to cycle for the uphill sections, even when I wasn't a pensioner. 

[Spartacus]

It strikes me that a better solution would be to place the cycle lane in the green, making it a more enjoyable experience then cycling up a road, and completely segregating it from buses thus increasing safety for all. 

Granted a small amount of the green space will be sacrificed but it does reduce conflict between cyclists and buses using the same space and possibly a more enjoyable cycling experience.

But I guess that's too radical for the council

[malumbu]

A nice thought.  I think it is difficult to get bike lanes through green space when there is a parallel road.  That's not a Southwark thing.

[jazzer]

More twisty than parallel

 

[Spartacus]

55 minutes ago, jazzer said:

More twisty than parallel

 

Maybe Southwark would take a leaf out of the Roman's book.and build a straight cycle path 😅

[malumbu]

But what did the Romans ever do for us?

[Spartacus]

52 minutes ago, malumbu said:

But what did the Romans ever do for us?

They built us Roads, that's what they did 😅

[malumbu]

They built Barry Road, has to be a Roman road

[Happyme5]

I just don't think more "cycle lanes" are the answer.   Better planning and forward thinking with proper planning / as I have said and legislation that makes us all as safe is needed.    Individual so called road improvements don't work for anyone. Eventually we will all be forced to use public transport or cycle.  Which really does not work for everyone.

[malumbu]

Cycling is still very much a niche activity.  I'd like it to be the norm for many, but this is not going to happen without massive political change and investment.  Even in the Netherlands, where around half of commutes under 5km are by bike, 3/4 of overall journeys are by car,  Around 2% (DfT National travel survey) of journeys are by bike in the UK.  There are around 250 miles of cycle routes in London compared to over 9000 miles of roads.

So, no, were are not going to be forced to cycle.  And if we are encouraged to use public transport even more through soft and harder measures that is a good thing.

 

Edited February 23 by malumbu

[first mate]

If people are not going to start cycling in great numbers then it is hard to justify investment in further infrastructure when we have a cost of living crisis.
 
We also need to consider why more people are not taking to cycling. I think it is a combination of factors- geography, weather, crime. How are you going to change those?

[kiera]

Skip to main content

Peckham Rye Gyratory: Drop-in Session

26 February 2025 • 16:00 - 19:00

 

From "Peckham Rye Gyratory bus improvements"

Go to the project

Your chance to come and view plans and discuss the proposals one-on-one with Project Officers.

Event date: February 26th, 2025 from 16:00 to 19:00.

26th  February 

16:00 - 19:00

 

Nigel Road

Troy Hall

 

 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 24/02/2025 at 08:09, first mate said:

If people are not going to start cycling in great numbers then it is hard to justify investment in further infrastructure when we have a cost of living crisis.
 
We also need to consider why more people are not taking to cycling. I think it is a combination of factors- geography, weather, crime. How are you going to change those?

More people have been taking to cycling. it's also worth investing in improvements to infrastructure for existing buses, pedestrians and cyclists, which this schemes seems to do.

On 18/02/2025 at 21:47, first mate said:

I think using comedic licence to spread distortions of what has actually been expressed is just spreading lies with a smiley face.

I haven't 'spread lies' what a ridiculous and offensive thing to say. There are people on here saying they don't want bike lanes / more routes for bikes and that 'Cyclists seem to think they can just take over roads'. The ambivalence to cyclists (often outright hostility) across this section of the forum is well documented. 

You have also said multiple times that you think cyclists are dangerous and called for the use of bikes to be more strongly regulated. You have even said:

"...if there were much greater numbers of cyclists I'd probably stop cycling. On the few occasions I have been out cycling and there have been lots of other cyclists on the same route it has felt quite dangerous and unpleasant"

For me to paraphrase that as some people not wanting to encourage more cycling, is hardly a stretch. It's certainly not 'spreading lies'.

Edited February 28 by Earl Aelfheah

[Listen up]

Getting back to the topic at hand the final day for submissions is this week so please respond asap.

 

I've lived on the Dulwich, Peckham & Nunhead sides of the park over 20 years so feel well qualified to say that the plans though noble in aim, are ill thought out and will be inferior to the current layout in many respects.  The major issues I can see are;

• Peckham Rye North East side rarely has delays of note, however closing it off for a bus lane to speed up journeys is disingenuous.  I see 3 reasons why.  Vehicles heading south will have less spread, leading to the backing up all the way to Rye Lane & Copeland road (All busses).  Vehicles heading north from Nunhead Lane, will only have option to turn up Peckham Rye west side (especially with Scylla plans) already the busier side, causing greater flow towards East Dulwich Road junctions between the two Park lights.  This section will be so busy that will also counterintuitively cause bus times (37, 484) to be slower.  Traffic crossing right will also have knock on issues for ED Road (West to East) where currently no real issue exists.
• These plans cause all residents of Whorlton & part of Scylla to be isolated and forced to head north to the gyratory (right across the proposed lane)creating another unnecessary load, and again counterintuitively creating slow downs for the busses (37, 78 343, P12)
• If there are roadworks on East Dulwich road, that we have seen a lot of in the last few years, then there is no redundancy in the system, causing all modes of transport to again be adversely affected.

I'm often a pedestrian, cyclist & motorist across this junction so am all up for real improvements, especially a resurface of the road.  Though this plan is anything but that, please make your thoughts known to Southwark today. 

https://engage.southwark.gov.uk/en-GB/projects/peckham-rye-gyratory-bus-improvements/surveys/new?phase_id=ee1dc2ef-9b4e-42af-b211-62cebdfe9fa7

Thanks

Edited 4 hours ago by Listen up

[malumbu]

@Listen upAs a cyclist how would you improve things?  It's always dreadful at peak commute.  I did that for over 15 years.

[Earl Aelfheah]

4 hours ago, Listen up said:

Peckham Rye North East side rarely has delays of note

Then why do you think that directing this small amount of traffic up the west side would cause tailbacks all the way to where the road splits and beyond?

4 hours ago, Listen up said:

These plans cause all residents of Whorlton & part of Scylla to be isolated and forced to head north to the gyratory

If heading south along the west side of the rye there is a very small diversion turning right and going round, instead of left and straight on. If travelling north it makes no difference. If travelling east you’d go via Nunhead lane as now. It’s a tiny difference, to a small number of private journeys, in order to  speed up buses carrying a far greater number of people

4 hours ago, Listen up said:

If there are roadworks on East Dulwich road, that we have seen a lot of in the last few years, then there is no redundancy in the system, causing all modes of transport to again be adversely affected.

How is this altered by these changes? You don’t say and I don’t see it.

Edited 10 minutes ago by Earl Aelfheah

[ArchieCarlos]

Overall there is a lot of good in this proposal, however the thing that I cannot understand is why the council uses two road signs and two different terminologies to represent the same concept:

• Bus gates, with the blue road sign, indicating that only buses, cycles, emergency vehicles and taxis can enter at certain times
• Road closures, with the red road sign, indicating that cars and motorcycles are prohibited at certain times

These two essentially represent the same thing, but I find it very confusing to have two sets of signs. The red sign which points to a prohibition / warning seems much more appropriate in order to inform the behaviour of drivers of cars and motorcycles.

That aside, I'm not sure the bus gate adds anything as the bit that currently gets very busy is the stretch of Peckham Rye close to Nigel road. It makes navigating the area harder without making much of a positive contribution (except fines). 

It also seems a shame that the cycle lanes at the top of Peckham Rye and on East Dulwich Rd are not connected. 

It would be good to see some more planting, especially the northern bit where they are removing two trees. This part of Peckham Rye is all concrete and pretty sad. 

And finally, I'd really like to see the council about the stretch of Peckham Rye in the town centre, which seems to be in much more urgent need of TLC than the one being addressed in this consultation.