Peckham Rye Gyratory reappears for 2 week consultation: little change, more disruption

[malumbu]

I'm commenting again about the broader picture.  I commuted by cycle for 20 years through Peckham Rye (west) and Rye Lane, it was (and still is) pretty horrid during peak times.  I'm not aware if and how the new scheme will affect that commute.

But I am interested in the political angle following the ex-councillor's interjection.  A simple AI response for the two main left parties:

LDs 

The Liberal Democrats' position on driver behaviour focuses on enhancing road safety, reducing environmental impacts, and promoting, or, in some cases, regulating the use of cars in favor of greener alternatives. Their approach combines technological solutions, support for safer infrastructure, and stricter penalties for dangerous driving.

 Greens

The Green Party of England and Wales positions itself to drastically reform driver behaviour through stricter regulations, reduced speed limits, and a shift toward sustainable, low-emission, and active travel, with an ultimate goal of zero road fatalities

Infrastructure and Road User Hierarchy: The party prioritizes a "road hierarchy" that places walking, cycling, and public transport above private motor vehicles. They plan to cancel new road-building programmes, using the funds to improve walking and cycling infrastructure. 

So both fall short of a totally radical rethink of our attitude to the motor car.  And how technology could, and hopefully should, see the end of the need for a private car in most urban environments freeing up 100s of miles of road space.

I'm sure that an earlier search mentioned the presumed liability, as adopted in some European countries, being something that LDs supported.  This is where the road user higher up the hierarchy eg car/motorcycle, or Truck/car would be presumed liable if there was a collision.  Perhaps James Barbour would know more.

[first mate]

19 hours ago, Spartacus said:

With regards the proposed scheme 

Removing paid parking will have an impact on the shops and resturants in the proposed area as it will be harder for "passing" trade to stop quickly and pick things up 

It also makes it harder for disabled drivers as they will have to park in the middle (5 spaces?) And then cross the road to get to the shops 

Currently, with the exception of a short time period in the morning, buses flow fairly freely through the proposed area so is this over engineering the solution? 

Unless i am wrong, the bus gate on Peckham Rye appears to stop cars, vans and taxis going to the gyratory from east dulwich road and from the forest hill / Barry Road direction, does this then impact traffic that needs to go to nunhead from the latter direction as there is no right turn at the lights ? How will this be managed or are cars going to be forced down to turn around at the goose green roundabout ? 

Basically, this is a poor design that will have massive negative impacts across a wider area fixing a problem that doesn't really exist and should be objected to and brought into scrutiny. 

 

 

Presumably local businesses have been consulted? 

[Spartacus]

Good question

[march46]

There is information provided on this - I’ve copied and pasted below for anyone who missed it. Sounds like the council did a very thorough job.

 

Parking & Loading changes:

The response to the consultation question about removal of parking bays showed majority support for removal, and this was followed up with surveys of affected businesses to understand their needs. More in depth surveys were commissioned to understand the impact of the proposals on existing businesses, and if there was opportunity for improvement. This took the form of kerbside parking and loading surveys, in-person interviews with affected businesses, online questionnaires and site observations. The main findings were that majority of parking was short stay, and almost all businesses on the western side used the single yellow line outside their premises for loading which can continue under the proposed scheme.

The design has subsequently been amended to remove more parking on the western side of the gyratory to provide wider footways outside the businesses. This can be applied for outdoor seating. Additional bays have been provided elsewhere to mitigate the reduction, as well as an increase in the number and location of disabled bays.

[Nigello]

I just can’t visualise “east” and “west” as easily as others (such as those much closer to this plan and/or who deal with plans much more often). Is there a decent map? 

[CPR Dave]

West side is the bit that borders se15 ED / Peckham 

East side is that bit that goes toward Nunhead.

[Rockets]

Crucial Peckham thoroughway could create traffic chaos if closure plans go ahead, say local residents – Southwark News https://share.google/MBUPtPCiDXm1PD2Oc

[march46]

Another alarmist headline that we’ll likely look back on in years to come with an eye roll. 

[Rockets]

Or we could also look back and say the headline was absolutely spot on and the council ignored residents' concerns and went ahead anyway knowing full well the disruption and displacement this might cause.

To be fair, recent history suggests the headline and local resident concerns will be proven to be correct.

 

Edited Sunday at 11:02 by Rockets

[malumbu]

@Rockets I'm well aware of your position - Southwark is corrupt/incompetent, the active travel 'lobby' in particular those pesky cyclists have too much influence and too much road infrastructure is devoted to them, and that measures to reduce traffic don't work.  i don't agree, but that is nature of debate.

Over to you, as a person who once cycled a lot, do you think that there should be no more cycle lanes, quiet ways and the like?  Would you like to see their removal and opening up of roads/junctions where motorised traffic is prohibited?

Are there any recent schemes that you support?

I rarely use the East side of the Rye so not really in a position to comment on the specifics and the impacts.  Are you are regular user?

Good to hear your response to those four questions.

[Penguin68]

The question wasn't addressed to me, but I certainly use both sides, depending upon where I am going and what the hold up is on either side - there have been terrible road works for nearly a year off and on. By cutting off one side there is every chance of dreadful disruption - as is normal when any roads are blocked,always exacerbated when alternatives become blocked as well. It is clear that the concept of free flow of traffic has been abandoned by certain groups - regardless of the needs of people, and the economy, for this. Southwark (and other boroughs) are becoming increasingly broken and intentionally. 

[IainJ]

Southwark has now extended the deadline for responses to the consultation by another week to Monday 23 February. 

Hard to see the point of creating a  segregated cycle lane of just 250m on Peckham Rye East when cyclists then have to negotiate traffic on other roads for the rest of their journey. Moving the bus stops further up Peckham Rye West to a narrow part of the road means cyclists are put in more danger - trying to overtake stationary buses puts them in direct conflict with oncoming traffic and is already an accident spot. At the moment they can overtake safely at the lights where there is a bus lane. 

There are hardly any accidents reported on Peckham Rye East. The danger to cyclists outweighs any benefits, it's worse for all other road users, a waste of money and should be opposed. But great for Southwark Council for raking in fines.   Here's the link again:

https://engage.southwark.gov.uk/en-GB/projects/peckham-rye-gyratory-bus-improvements

Edited Sunday at 12:31 by IainJ

[malumbu]

1 hour ago, Penguin68 said:

The question wasn't addressed to me, but I certainly use both sides, depending upon where I am going and what the hold up is on either side - there have been terrible road works for nearly a year off and on. By cutting off one side there is every chance of dreadful disruption - as is normal when any roads are blocked,always exacerbated when alternatives become blocked as well. It is clear that the concept of free flow of traffic has been abandoned by certain groups - regardless of the needs of people, and the economy, for this. Southwark (and other boroughs) are becoming increasingly broken and intentionally. 

Why does your driving support the economy?  My driving supports me and friends/family.  I'll still buy things whether I drive, use other forms of transport or get things delivered.  Similarly, I'll still socialise and spend money in the hospitality industry irrespective of the form of transport.

If I deem it more inconvenient to myself not to drive, I feel that I am making the world a better place rather than clogging up roads what I consider as unnecessarily.  If government and others make it more difficult to drive, for example in charging me for parking, that is a good thing.

[Penguin68]

1 hour ago, malumbu said:

Why does your driving support the economy?

I never said it did, and you are misquoting me for trolling purposes. I said that the free flow of traffic benefited the economy, and it was precisely that lack of free flow which instituted the initial congestion charge justified by its economic contribution to London, based on the reduction of travel costs and the speeding up of e.g. delivery. The fact that different considerations driven by hated of private cars, inter alia, and a desire to drive funds then reduced road availability through dedicated lanes and the introduction of revenue generating box junctions have taken through speeds in central London back to the 12mph fiasco that the congestion charge was meant to address is a sad reflection on lost opportunity. 

[rollflick]

6 hours ago, IainJ said:

Hard to see the point of creating a  segregated cycle lane of just 250m on Peckham Rye East when cyclists then have to negotiate traffic on other roads for the rest of their journey. Moving the bus stops further up Peckham Rye West to a narrow part of the road means cyclists are put in more danger - trying to overtake stationary buses puts them in direct conflict with oncoming traffic and is already an accident spot. At the moment they can overtake safely at the lights where there is a bus lane. 

It does make sense in principle, as Rye Lane is closed to through traffic and there will be a cycle lane up towards Crofton Park. And this section (Scylla to Copeland Road) is by far the least pleasant as well as having the most reported collisions. But you are right about moving the busy bus stop from Tescos to the Nag's Head creating an obvious major new conflict point.

There are a lot of other problems with the design so good there's more time to respond. In particular, the cycle crossing close to the Copeland Road traffic lights would cause a lot of unnecessary aggro and congestion. Plus the one-way sections of cycle lane are too narrow for existing flows let alone any increase, a fact that Southwark is still wrongly denying. The scheme needs a bigger redesign too if it is to be net positive for buses: it helps some routes while making others worse.

Bit odd Friends of Peckham Rye Park being against measure to shift people from cars to less environmentally intrusive transport (see Southwark News link above). Many people using the park might actually prefer a more tranquil environment, does make you wonder how representative they are.

NB The web page says the deadline is now 22 not 23 February.

 

[Rockets]

22 hours ago, malumbu said:

Why does your driving support the economy?  My driving supports me and friends/family. 

The London Assembly quoted a cost to the London economy due to congestion in 2024 of £3.85bn.....there is an economic cost.

These plans seem to be Southwark Council revisiting the disastrous LTNs they planned, and then had to shelve, for Peckham Rye after Covid. I cannot remember what "Phase" they referred to it as back than but they had significant pushback from bus companies and emergency services on those botched plans yet tried to push forward and it got killed before they could roll it out. A few years later and they seem to be coming back and having another go - although I am not sure how much these plans have changed.

I don't use that part of Peckham Rye that much anymore so will take input from the local residents who know the junction far better than me and their thoughts on it seem pretty clear and the fact The Friends of Peckham Rye have a voice against does speak volumes.

 

[richard tudor]

What is wrong is the Council never take note of residents who have greater experience of roads/traffic than the so called experts,consultants who do not even live in the area.

 

A classic example of this is Champion Hill. But Southwark /Sustrans, the consultants if I remember correctly, did not listen to residents , Now what was once a1 minute journey from Camberwell Grove,for example to Denmark Hill depending on traffic and now is a round the house journey  that takes 10 minutes.

[malumbu]

7 hours ago, Rockets said:

The London Assembly quoted a cost to the London economy due to congestion in 2024 of £3.85bn.....there is an economic cost.

 

 

Good heavens, would this scheme really cost the economy that much?

But to be serious, you band round these figures and seem to suggest that this is all down to LTNs.  I could say, with more justification, it is more to do with too many unnecessary car journeys.

Would you get rid of all restrictions on vehicles?  By ending school streets would you argue that economic activity, and the freedom to drive where you like and when you like is more important than school children's safety.?

Meanwhile I await your response to my four questions from yesterday as well as the two above.  Ignore the first one, that was me just making a point.

 

[Spartacus]

26 minutes ago, malumbu said:

 

But to be serious, you band round these figures and seem to suggest that this is all down to LTNs.  I could say, with more justification, it is more to do with too many unnecessary car journeys..

 

Define unnecessary 

What may seem unnecessary to you could be critical to how others get around 

Looking through your rose coloured cycling glasses ignores what for some are necessary journeys 

Therefore please define unnecessary talung into account other peoples needs.

Edited 8 hours ago by Spartacus

[malumbu]

@Spartacushow would  you to define what is essential?

A quick view from me:

Are there quicker ways of getting from A to B? for jouneys to central London public transport may be faster, and from much of my time in London cycling is far quicker

If I'm moving a largish weight of material around would it be easier to order on line and get delivered?

Are their healthier ways of getting there - for example is it a relatively straight forward walk?

Cheaper alternatives, for many in London ditching the car and using other means in terms of annual costs makes better financial sense

Could I share the ride with someone else? - particularly relevant for childrens' activiities

Do I want to consume alcohol?  Leave the car behind.

Can I justify in my own mind why I should be adding to congestion and pollution by driving?

Will an extra few minutes taking the bus be an inconvenience ? I usually take a book or paper, but most of us have a hand held computer and telecommunications device

Are there less stressful alternatives - for example if there is a lot of traffic, difficulties in parking and the like?

@Rockets it would be good to get your take on what is essential, as well as your response to my other six questions.

 

As driving is habitual for many, there may be little thinking on much of the above

 

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, malumbu said:

But to be serious, you band round these figures and seem to suggest that this is all down to LTNs. 

 No these figures are caused by congestion I have never blamed that solely on LTNs - please at least try to be accurate and not put words into my mouth.

Now are LTNs and other active travel interventions contributing to increased congestion - undoubtedly and seemingly to an extent that is causing the London Assembly some concern due to, amongst other things, the impact it is having on buses.

London congestion continues to get worse on a backdrop of declining vehicles on the roads so clearly something else is going on and it is having a massive economic and environmental impact. You cant sugarcoat it anymore - the interventions are not working and there needs to be a fundamental rethink. Trying to throw in ludicrous programmes like Ryedale and Peckham Rye, both of which clearly impact more people negatively than they benefit, shows just how out of control the active travel obsessives, and the lobby groups they call friends, are within local councils.