Rockets

@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.

Was there any indication on the What's App group why the council was in such a rush to get this rolled out? Which councillors were leading the charge to get it deployed?

@Earl Aelfheah but what about the content of the emails.......which your LLM conveniently omitted....;-)

Spot on. I would love to know who was asking whether they could by-pass internal governance processes, which in my company, would be reason enough to report someone to internal governance. And they are ignoring all the advice they are given - look at this on the two one-way street ideas about large vehicle movements (like bin lorries).

But @Earl Aelfheah if there were suspicions then they have been vindicated not by the search itself but by the content of the emails - the content is there for all to see - surely you can acknowledge that. The smoking gun is not from the muzzle of those sending the FOI but those who wrote the emails. Surely you must acknowledge that something odd is going on when you read @Lebanums summary? I mean this is a potential PR disaster for the council and the councillors seeking election. Can anyone trust Southwark Labour anymore? Everything many of us feared regarding the way councils treat these processes and their constituents is being realised right now. Surely even you cannot defend the council this time round?

It is. Southwark Labour are treating residents with utter contempt. They have been doing it for years over LTNs and clearly thought they could get away with it again. This is what happens when organisations get away with abusing their power - they keep doing it. To be fair @Earl Aelfheah I saw your summary and then opened one of the documents (emails and other reports pdf) and saw far more aligned with @Lebanums summary than yours - did you not upload that file? That's where the juicy staff is! It may also have struggled as so much of it is redacted.

Ha ha, looks like @Earl Aelfheah got some, ahem, AI hallucination thrown in to their summary....

To be fair, we don't actually know you do - we will just have to take your word for it. But your posting history does arose suspicions.... All we have to go on is that you registered on the forum recently, have only posted about your support for the Ryedale LTN, yet claimed to not know what an LTN is, yet when you do start decide to start repeating activist research on how "good" LTNs are, you then claim to be an academic yourself and have experience of peer-reviewed research yet you apply results from said activist research as an example of what the Ryedale LTN will do yet have not acknowledged that the Ryedale LTN is very, very different from what the research surveyed - you're basically taking research for apples and applying it to pears and I am not sure that's sound academia. Has TFL ever funded any studies not by Aldred, Goodman et al......? Perhaps it might be a good time for them to start- oh sorry they can't can they as the multi-million pound pot for it was all given to them.....;-) Bottom-line remains that those who have fast-tracked this through, seemingly trying to by-pass proper process and scrutiny, have a lot of questions to answer.

Some who did a door-to-door signature petition to the council in relation to the Dulwich Village LTNs were told it could not be considered as it was not an official council petition and the council have not proof the folks hadn't made it all up. Was the online one on the Southwark council petition site? Is that a resident-led survey - it cannot be a council one as the asterisk's in the notes are way too leading for that to have been allowed on a council document. If it is a resident-led survey then this is why the council, has previously, said they cannot be counted because clearly those doing the survey know the outcome they want when they wrote the survey and its validity and legitimacy can be questioned. Could someone share the FOI documents, or a summary, here? Unfortunately, this is how Southwark labour treat their constituents - clearly someone wanted to get this in very quickly and I am sure the real reason why will come out in the wash. With local elections around the corner this may be a step too far for some but is very reflective of the way our elected officials treat the process and people around anything to do with active travel. Clearly someone was desperate to get this in play as a matter of urgently and someone needs to explain why the council was trying to circumvent its own internal procedures. And if there are FOI documents asking the Southwark legal team about exposure from the approach they are taking, clearly someone knew they were trying to bend/break the rules and not follow the process. Perhaps @Tori Griffiths can do some digging?

Amazing isnt it...someone who earlier purported to not even know what LTN stood for suddenly appears to be an expert on peer-reviewed documents from cycle lobbyists! 😉 P.S. has anyone seen anything of @Moondoox recently? There do seem to be a few first time posters trying to throw their weight behind the council's plans....hmmmm Absolutely spot on and whilst @Tori Griffiths may be throwing a vote for me and we will do a consultation line there is very little evidence that Southwark Labour will ever listen to the view of residents. Their motto is something along the lines of "never let the views of local residents get in the way of an active travel intervention that the lobbyists asked us to do". Seemingly only data analysed by activist researchers (one of who was an LCC employee, the other who is an LTN poster vandal and an active and leading member of the West Dulwich LTN campaign group - her husband runs it apparently) makes these claims...I mean the council's own limited data showed a 6% increase in traffic on Underhill after the Dulwich LTNs went in....but hey ho... Unfortunately TFL and the Mayor's office don't tend to fund research that shows its interventions are not working.

It does make you wonder why local councillors were in such a rush to get this in place. @Tori Griffiths as a resident of one of the local streets what are your views on the likely impact to others? Do you have any idea how this got approved so quickly without a proper consultation? Around 80% of local residents rejected the Dulwich Square closure during the official consultation.

If the FOI is correct it appears some at the council could not see the merit of it….and if that is the case you have to ask why some within the council felt so compelled to push it through.

Again, did you experience an increase of traffic on Underhill Road after the Dulwich LTNs went in? Remember the council's limited monitoring showed traffic had increased by 6% on Underhill after the LTNs went in. Ryedale is a route vehicles take to and from Underhill. If what you claim is correct about Waze and traffic lights or if St Dunstan's becomes even more impassable at the junction with Forest Hill road vehicles will likely continue along Underhill to find another, quicker, route. The flaw in your argument is that this is reducing traffic using one road only. All this does is displace traffic to another neighborouring road. Ah, about those peer-reviewed results....;-). Don't get us started...just do a search for Anna Goodman LTN poster! 😉 Errr....how exactly? You're using "evidence" from distinct ring-fenced LTN areas rather than an LTN consisting of one isolated street. The council has also admitted, in the documentation that you have claimed to have read, that traffic will likely be displaced to St Dunstans. If I lived on Underhill I would not be backing this programme at all as it will not reduce traffic on Underhill at all, it may actually increase it. It's a bit like Turkeys voting for Christmas! Righty ho....so.......you dont know the LTN acronym, but you have seen them mentioned in the news but stayed out of the debate because it can feel quite hostile. Did you happen across all the Rachel Aldred/Anna Goodman research by a quick Internet search....;-)

Which acronyms do you not understand - not sure how anyone living in Dulwich does not know what an LTN is. Can I ask you then, did the traffic on your road increase over the last 5 years? The LTNs (low traffic neighbourhood - which is what the council are putting in on Ryedale) were put in after Covid. I am afraid that is not how this works in reality. The major road roads are now badly congested due to the Dulwich LTNs and are the slowest routes of the 3 or so options to get to the A205 Eastbound from Dulwich. So unless the new congestion caused by the Ryedale closure on roads like St Dunstans is so bad that it means that route is now, no longer, the fastest route. That is very, very unlikely to be the case. What is far more likely to happen is that new side road routes become the quickest route. LTNs pay Paul by robbing Peter. So any support for the Ryedale LTN does not fix a problem it merely moves the problem from one street to another. And actually, as a resident of Underhill, there is an very high percentage chance your road will become even busier when these measures go in - be careful what you wish for!