Rockets

What am I wrong that Tyre Extinguishers were vandalising car tyres a couple of years ago? Do you not think this is a similar MO and likely to be someone with a similar "environmental" agenda? Do you have any better ideas?

Oh no it's not..... No I do not believe Waze would have done that pre-LTNs. The reason? Waze makes it recommendations, amongst other things, from other cars using Waze stuck in traffic. If you look back at my messages from around 2020/21 I was saying how bad the congestion at Grove Tavern had become post LTNs and how it snaked back up Lordship Lane often to the Court Lane junction. Why? Because I was often there every day at the bus stop.

The follow-up London Assembly Transport Committee met yesterday to discuss what was causing the congestion in London. Some very interesting discussions - worth listening from about 58 minutes. I got about an hour on from that and some key highlights thus far: TFL acknowledging that traffic was down in London but competing road usage needs was contributing to additional congestion TFL admitting that some LTNs are causing additional congestion TFL being told reminded by the chair that every answer about congestion cannot be balanced by the response for the need for active travel TFL talking about the downward trend in KSIs and then one Assembly Member saying how is it that the borough with the biggest drop in KSIs is Bromley, a borough where the 20mph limit is not in place - as clearly a leading question from the Assembly member and TFL said he would need to look at the numbers TFL acknowledging that for drivers of private vehicles there will be a slowdown as they make more road space available for sustainable travel

Err @Earl Aelfheah sorry, what? You know Forest Hill is on the A205 right? How as what I said nonsense - just a reminder I said.... Let's look at one example: if you are trying to get to the A205 from Goose Green roundabout and want to avoid the congestion at the Grove Tavern junction which way do you think you are going to go? Oh @Earl Aelfheah - ok, let's break this down for you - it's not about the journey you are making - it is the journey others are making and congestion caused by that. You seem to be missing the fundamental point I was making in the post you selectively clipped- go back and read it again and see if the penny drops. Actually, let me explain this to you by the journey you searched for on Waze - to get to that part of Dulwich Common you used to be able to go via Calton and what is now Dulwich Square. Now you can't - so traffic has to go another route. Interesting isn't it that Waze did not suggest going via Grove Tavern and a right turn there - why, because of the congestion? You are doing a great job of highlighting what the stark realities of LTNs are.

Did anyone say that? But the point you are missing is that pre-LTNs the congestion would not regularly go as far back as Melford Road - the left hand lane would remain clear. The right-hand lane turning right onto the A205 now tails back much further. This is why the council had to extend the bus lane closer to Melford as bus times were being affected due to the new build-up of congestion at the narrowing point near Melford -which in turn made congestion worse back towards Court Lane. Anyhow, I am not sure you are aware of the road layout but your search via Waze is a pointless one because you cannot turn right out of Underhill so cannot go westbound on the A205 that way. Try re-running the search going from Goose Green to Forest Hill.....I rest my case.....here is what LTNs do - 6 minutes quicker going via Underhill than Lordship Lane.

Everyone @malumbu has spoken - it has now been decided that Underhill is, in fact, a motorway..... Honestly, how on earth do you categorise Underhill as a main road? That is just beyond ridiculous - are you just using this as a Trump'esque distraction technique - say something so ludicrous everyone gets distracted...I mean you don't actually believe what you say do you?

And they didn't include Underhill in the area wide monitoring dashboard. When you look at the infographic you linked to you can see what is actually happening by looking at the bus diagrams for bus journey times and you can see how the council gerrymandered the traffic results. Clearly bus journey times were being impacted on boundary roads, many of which they were not monitoring. Their dashboard that "proved" the measures were a "success" were monitoring a very specific group of "internal and external roads" that bore no relation to the diversion routes likely taken around the measures and their residual fallout. When you are celebrating the 80% decline in traffic on Calton and 71% reduction on Court Lane (which had been closed to through traffic) yet monitoring only select parts of Lordship Lane and nothing on Underhill, East Dulwich Road or any number of the routes around the congestion it is clear what the motives are. Come on @march46 it is not that difficult to understand. Let's look at one example: if you are trying to get to the A205 from Goose Green roundabout and want to avoid the congestion at the Grove Tavern junction which way do you think you are going to go?

Errrrr @Earl Aelfheah the answer to your question is in the part of my post you selectively edited out. Are we to presume you didn't bother reading the whole of my sentence or just ignored it as it doesn't suit your narrative? I re-post it below so you can take time to digest it.

@ianr maybe the better question you should be asking is why the council did no monitoring of Underhill despite it being a clear displacement route. They monitored the majority of others. Lots of people asked around the time of the LTNs why nothing on Underhill and if I remember rightly Maggie Browning said there were plans to but they never materialised. It was so clear to everyone who lived around there what was happening.

So @malumbu you don't think it is Tyre Extinguishers then...perhaps there is a more radical fringe group that splintered from TE? As far as I am aware Tyre Extinguishers were the only group calling on the public to vandalise cars in the name of climate change....

@Earl Aelfheah it's not that difficult to work out. Since the closure of Calton one of the main East/West routes across Dulwich has been removed which has forced more traffic along routes that have not been closed. This has, in turn, created congestion hotspots at key junctions like the Grove Tavern (in addition the extension of the bus lane to closer to Melford Road created a massive choke point). So traffic is trying to find way/Waze around it and has been funnelling along Underhill Road to basically cut out Grove Tavern. This is why the council refused to monitor traffic numbers along Underhill as it would show a big increase in traffic numbers post LTNs and would have ruined their claims that traffic numbers were down across the area.

Oh my.....if you think Underhill is a main road I would suggest you need a bit of a rethink. I think you have summed things up quite well! Yet you feel compelled to share your wisdom to us as well. It does affect many people who were both my neighbours and friends and parents of children who went to Goodrich with our kids. And they are livid because as people who live in the area and have had to live with the LTN displacement along Underhill and surrounding streets they are incredulous Southwark are doing this as it makes zero sense and will deliver traffic hell for St Dunstan's and St Aidan's and are smart enough to see through the council nonsense.

@malumbu I was merely addressing your playground antics....to be fair it does seem as if you started it... I do live further away now but for a long time lived a darn sight closer to Underhill and Ryedale than you do so just letting you know you're trying to pick on the wrong person in the playground. This one knows the area very well and has been consistently very vocal about the negative impact the LTNs have had on Underhill as I saw it first hand.

Spot on. This is why the council refused to monitor Underhill as they knew it was massive displacement route and if they had included it they would not have been able to claim a "reduction in areawide traffic post LTN". The omission of Underhill from their monitoring was very deliberate. Underhill has been soaking up the displacement from the Dulwich LTNs since they went in and anyone who argues against it clearly hasn't got the foggiest what they are talking about and are probably being driven by ideology rather than reality.

Oh my @malumbu you have excelled yourself on that one. Wonderful, just wonderful - can we get that framed please? The most obvious answer (beyond the one where I point out I used to live on a road off Underhill - which I refrained from doing when you tried to claim you knew Underhill better than me) is that at least I live in the same town/borough as the road in question....ahem.....;-) You may not see the irony in my post as I suspect you didn't see the irony in your own post!

The more you spend time reviewing the council's documents the more you realise how absolutely bat-s**t crazy this plan is - could this be the very worst plan they have executed thus far - there have been a few. For years that part of Dulwich has been blighted by the displacement caused by the LTNs in other parts of Dulwich and now they are putting something in that is going to make life even worse for those on Dunstan's and St Aidan's. And this part of the council document is the most damning as it is basically council transport officers saying "you're going to create big problems by doing this" to the councillors and them saying "yeah, we know we know better than you and will deal with that later". Let's hope those affected let the councillors know how annoyed they are at the ballot box in May - I hope people are trying to rally behind a tactical voting plan to unseat those who are backing this - they deserve it as they are showing utter contempt for their constituents (who don't live on Ryedale).

Because it is clearly just a wish of yours that has no bearing on reality perhaps? What amazes me is that some people struggle to grasp the issue here - those 1,000 vehicle journeys that the council claims go down Ryedale don't just evaporate when this measure goes in - they do down Dunstans and other roads in the area. Of course it does but in the bizarre world they live in the council thinks this is acceptable - that somehow the residents of Dunstan's and St Aiden's are acceptable collateral damage. And we all know what they mean when they say they will "investigate Dunstan's and St Aiden's at a later date". That means they'll go to the residents and ask them if they want some form of intervention for a problem the council were 100% behind creating. It's ridiculous and the fact some on here like @Insuflo blindly spout the council rhetoric shows how far down the hole some people are - and unfortunately for the rest of us this seems to be the only group of people the council will listen to.

This isn't those Tyre Extinguisher's idiots again is it as they seemed to like to publicise their attacks and they have gone very quiet?

These interventions do not deliver evaporation. I still laugh that councils referred to evaporation - which was a ludicrous choice of words as we all know that evaporation condenses and falls somewhere else.....which is displacement. Of course but these types of intervention don't deliver less congestion, they deliver more congestion. They are a blunt instrument. My dislike is of utterly stupid interventions like this which is clearly going to Rob Peter to pay Paul. The fact someone signed off this plan shows how out of touch the council is and why they should be stripped of the powers they have been given. They are abusing the powers of their office.

You may expect wrong......are you basing this incorrect conclusion on the fact I live near the Dulwich LTN? Of course I do because displacement is very much a thing associated with LTNs. LTNs do not lead to "evaporation" they lead to displacement and whilst the council will no doubt herald how the closure of one end of Ryedale has led to a drop in through-traffic on that particular road they will be less keen to talk about what it is is going to do to traffic and pollution on Dunstans. The whole plan is utterly daft and really shows how unhinged the council has become.

This is utter myopic blinkered nonsense. So @malumbu if as you suggest, these streets have "fairly limited traffic", then why on earth do the council need to put this in? And by doing so are they causing that "fairly limited traffic" to evaporate or displace? If it displaces where does it go? I very much suspect you know this is wrong but feel the need to try and defend your/not your beloved council. Nobody is suggesting car drivers don't need to be smarter but anyone with any commonsense knows this will will have zero impact on car usage but will have an impact on road usage and may well, quite tellingly, lead to more congestion and subsequent pollution. I can guarantee you the Southwark council interventions on my side of Dulwich have had a contributing factor to increases in car traffic on the Ryedale side of Dulwich. To be fair @malumbunone of the roads you always have an opinion on are definitely not "your local roads" either - I mean, you're not even a resident of Dulwich or Southwark are you? So is it not a bit rich and hypocritical of you to try and throw that one at me don't you think!

Which is all a bit bizarre as they seemingly made the decision based on a non-council approved "petition". They're a bit contradictory aren't they? Is this on the Southwark petition website?

But it doesnt mention shared-use does it? This is why the shared-use signage is beyond the vehicular entrance - the road leading to the gate is not a shared-use route. Those vehicles allowed to enter the park are alerted to the 5mph limit at the vehicular entrance. The shared-use route signs are beyond the vehicular entrance and can be found at entrances no longer used for vehicular movements. Were you exceeding 5mph too? BTW did the Lime bike abate it's top speed - my kids are convinced Like bikes dont slow in the park.

Remember Southwark Labour's motto is: for the few, not the many!

As ever, I am more than happy to clarify things for you @Earl Aelfheah. The signage is telling people who the users (pedestrians, dogs and cyclists) of the shared-use path are and the speed limit on that path (5mph). Vehicular movements are permitted only under special circumstances: permit holders and event specific movements - both of which are governed by separate usage rules (that allows them to use a shared use route) and require a specific application to the council to get authorisation. To be honest I am not sure what point you are trying to make - the 5mph limit applies to ALL vehicles - this is why the council refer to it on the entrance board at the Dulwich Village gate as a "5mph area" which is the term given to a private area where a local authority has applied a specific speed limit. As I said it is the same as Dulwich Estates making 10mph the speed limit on the shared-use path in front of Dulwich College per the image.