Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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. 

  • Agree 2
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 by Earl Aelfheah
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...

Screenshot From 2025-02-14 09-35-12.png

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
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 by Earl Aelfheah
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.

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 by Earl Aelfheah
  • Thanks 1

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. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3

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 by Happyme5
Addition
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

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.  

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

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 by Earl Aelfheah
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?

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.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
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

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

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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