Rockets

Welcome to the forum! Why are these journey's "not local"....because they are displacement from the other LTNs. I am sorry folks this is what happens when you put LTNs in - councils then have to chase the displacement. This closure will cause more displacement and the Pavlovian response from the council will be..."do you want an LTN". Of course for the residents of Dunstan's this likely won't be a solution as you will basically make it impossible to exit the Underhill area towards Peckham. So did the council think that a St Aiden's LTN would create problems for Ryedale and yet decided to throw St Dunstan's under the same bus? But this is the very approach the council has taken to manage this supposed issue elsewhere in Dulwich - they have extended double yellows to the maximum permissible length to aid junction safety - clearly it is a ruse to remove parking spaces but was this considered by the council or were they just desperate to put another LTN in? This whole plan is utterly ridiculous - has the council devised a way for refuse lorries to not have to just do loops of St Dunstans and Ryedale on the weekly rounds?

@Earl Aelfheah try to keep it on topic please - we see what you are doing here. And what you're ducking is the clear proof, in the FOI materials, that the council tried to avoid it's own internal governance procedures, ignored the testimony from its own executives and those invited to give opinion and were hellbent on rolling this out as quickly as possible and to push any hurdles aside without any formal consultation. That is what the FOI materials show - now you want to argue about what AI prompts were used to generate, what I feel, was a far more reflective AI summary than yours. I suggest if you want to talk about various AI LLMs and how the prompts work you take that to the lounge because the longer you go on about it the more it looks like a weak attempt to distract from the aforementioned subject matter which is there for all to see in black and white.

The only flaw in your argument is that the research is exclusively only carried out by, as you put it, "two dodgy researchers". Why? Because those are the researchers funded by TFL and the Mayor to, ahem, "impartially" survey TFL and the Mayor's implementations. Do you have any links to this - first time I have heard anything about this? Underhill will also bear the brunt of this...so be careful what you wish for. In fact, if the council then has to take action on St Dunstan's you'll be seeing a lot more traffic on your road. And I worked that one out myself despite of your accusation about Thick People! To be fair, I am so pleased you have, amazingly quickly, developed such a strong opinion especially given you claimed, no matter than a few days ago, to have never heard of an LTN before...now you are calling people who disagree with you "thick people". I think you are exposing yourself a bit here. In the matter of 8 posts you've gone from "I don't know what LTN stands for" to landing on "there is a lot of money behind the anti-LTN movement".....that's one hell of a shift #justsayin Anyway, if this is the end of your time on the Forum it's been an absolute pleasure having you thank you for joining and sharing your views.

@malumbu that might be because James is a politician and everything Labour does is usually wrong (or at least ill-thought out or listening to the views of one lobby group more than the majority of constituents) 😉 Please run @James Barber - the Labour stranglehold needs to be broken to get some more pragmatism into local politics!

Does anyone actually consider what is causing the problem rather than just looking for a solution to solve the problem? Why are cars using it as a cut through - because of the LTNs in other parts of Dulwich. Putting another LTN in doesn't fix the problem it just moves the problem to someone else to live with. It's a sledgehammer to crack a nut and is a very blunt, and ultimately ineffective, instrument.

Did it occur to you to consider why traffic is using it as a cut through or what will happen to that traffic once Ryedale is closed? No, implemented by councillors. Traffic engineers are part of the process and seem to have been lobbying hard against elements of these proposals - which are still in place. This whole narrative around "well councillors can do what they want as we can kick them out every 4 years" is a very, very dangerous precedent to set. Councillors and the council are still accountable to constituents throughout their term and they have to follow process, governance and protocol - they cannot just do what they want as they are an elected official and I very much suspect the person who withdrew from the process knew full well that rules were being bent/broken and decided they wanted no part of it. And therein lies my point - there is a generation of "post-Covid cyclists" who think you have to have segregated infrastructure for cycling to be safe. You don't and actually there is growing evidence that it is no longer just driver behaviour that needs to be changed to reduce KSIs but cyclist behaviour too - hence the cyclist red light jumping programme being installed in the City showing cyclists who jump red lights the video of the woman being hit by a bus when doing so. But let's get the thread back on track the closure of Ryedale has nothing to do with cycling and we still need to determine why the council/councillors were in such a rush to get it installed without the proper consultation process. It is one thing running a consultation and ignoring the results, it is another not bothering to run the consultation at all and pushing the measures out anyway.

At what point do those who side with the council go...you know what that's outrageous and not what I expect of my elected officials? Or are some so entrenched that they will never get to that point - happy to turn a blind eye to abuse of power and seriously questionable actions because the outcome aligns with their ideology?

Are you now questioning whether judges uphold the rule of law and are actually being swayed by "NIMBYs with money and time on their hands?" @malumbu was it not the judge that summed up by saying it was a "masterclass in selective partial reporting" or is that just spin from biased folks with an agenda.....;-)

Ha ha, or because they are activist researchers...a, perhaps, far more worrying trend where organisations like TFL and the Mayor's office get friendly researchers to help them mark their homework for them 😉 I think what you meant to say was that you're avoiding the recent debate because the FOIs expose something you have said cannot and was not happening....and poses real questions about your beloved Southwark Council and their approach to active travel interventions.

To be fair what you claim to be a "fake AI summary" was a darn-sight more accurate than what you posted....but we know you love to put your own unique spin on things to suit your own agenda.......and then accuse others of being biased....laughable.

Unfortunately I think the incoming candidate may have to live with the "backlash and bad press" as I suspect assurances by them of the council consulting, reviewing and amending post-election may not hold much weight with the electorate - we have seen this so many times before and we know how this goes. This is likely to erode a lot of trust in Southwark Labour - no matter who the councillor is. The question really needs to be answered why the rush - it seems to be political suicide to try to rush this out so close to an election and most councillors would want to wait until after the election. Who has been pushing this to be so urgent and why? Is it because they were worried about losing the ward, is it because someone had made a promise to someone/some group about this going in, was it because they had budget and have to get it in this financial year....the rush suggests there is some motivating factor most are not aware of that is driving this.

The thread is only embarrassing for the council, councillors and those who blindly support them in their active-travel/LTN quest. It is yet another proof point that what some of us have been saying about the way the council and councillors have been abusing the process may well be true.

To be fair @Earl Aelfheah you don't seem to be that keen to discuss the content, just argue about which AI summary is more accurate. I don't know about anyone else but when I look at the documents within the FOI then @Lebanums AI summary seems far more balanced than yours. The fact you have the gall to post something to suggest that it demonstrates "numerous governance strengths" when a key excerpt is email traffic suggesting the council avoids it's own internal governance process is beyond laughable. You are making yourself look a little bit myopic over this - there is no defence for the way the council has behaved over this. The FOI materials are beyond damning - one person even withdraws from the process due to the approach being taken - no doubt to protect their own reputation and, possibly, career.

@Earl Aelfheah come on....you are not going to able to distract people from the content within the FOI. This is just desperate now. It's absolutely damning. You know it. Everyone knows it. You're desperately trying to distract away from the smoking gun left by the council and the way you refuse to acknowledge the content is the most telling, and concerning, part of this.

This is really bad for Southwark Labour. It is an utter disgrace. Some of them are abusing the powers given to them with the office they hold.