Rockets

This thread is brilliant! I am glad it has a happy ending. The reference to the Punto keys reminds of the days of when you could "jiggle a lock" with a similar car key and I speak from painful memory as a kid I managed to lock the keys in our car whilst on a camping holiday in Spain. My mum and dad didn't speak much Spanish and much hilarity ensued (post event) as they tried to communicate to the driver of a similar make and model of car as to why they had flagged him down and were trying to get him to lend them the key from his ignition!

And the longer this goes on, the more the council's underhand tactics come to light and sheds new light on what was happening when they started these programmes - validating what many of us were saying at the time and one intervention at a time engages more people across the area in the debate - look at the number of people from the Ryedale area posting on here and now from Peckham Rye. This is the beauty of local discussion forums like this - they allow people to communicate who would probably never do so without it! This is why so many who support the council are so desperate to try and make people move on - they probably realise there are skeletons buried under every LTN in the area (figuratively of course) and are trying to protect their beloved council - as we have been saying for years councillors, councils and politicians of all political persuasion absolutely hate accountability.

@Earl Aelfheah can you show us any research where said activist researchers were not involved......? If one of the famed authors is passionate enough to tear down anti-LTN posters in their local newsagents I think everyone is well within their rights to question the impartiality of their output as an "impartial" author on (vested-interest) funded research into the effectiveness of LTNs....if the boot was on the other foot I very much suspect you would have an issue with it. That's a bit rich coming from you don't you think...you are more than happy to insist something must be true because the council tells you it is so.....I mean they got you hook, link and sinker with the "majority support" for the Dulwich Village LTNs in their consultation summary documents didn't they....#justsayin 😉

@DulvilleRes oh deary me....I have not ducked any question and I have told you one million times before...I have nothing to do with One Dulwich nor have any affiliation to any lobby group or political party. I do not think they are funded by some shadowy cabal - but you, clearly do, yet other than making mealy-mouthed accusations against others you have presented zero evidence to back this up. Zero. So maybe it is time that you go and do some "citizen journalism" yourself and come to everyone with something substantive to backup your claims. Because at the moment it looks like nothing more than a poorly thought out, poorly executed desperate distraction technique which you whole-heartedly wish to be true. I remind you that it was you who seemed to take great offence that someone made public (using publically available information and information publicised by the person concerned themselves on their own social channels) that an award winning active travel lobbyist had been appointed to an influential position within the Dulwich Society on transport issues - why was that exactly? My personal view is that you just don't like what I post as it doesn't align with your own ideological, political and active travel views so you try to attack me in the vain hope of trying to silence me. Fair enough - that's you're prerogative (and this seems to be the go-to position in the active travel lobby playbook on how to try to deal with dissenting voices) but that probably says far more about you than it does me and, as I have said a million times before I have nothing to hide. As I have said before you seem to be a Dulwich Village resident so perhaps you can try to contribute to the debate positively by telling us if you believe congestion is better or worse since the LTNs went in on Dulwich Village? A yes/no answer will suffice,. Yey...it took a while but almost there.....do you think the heavy congestion is better or worse then pre-LTNs? Only, I suspect, when the council does research that it didn't commission an active travel activist researcher to produce! 😉 The growing issue for councils is that if, in time, people discover they did have information that these interventions were not working and they were selective in the information they decided to share in infographics etc then they could be in big, big trouble both politically and legally.

Ah @Earl Aelfheah there you are! Now you're here perhaps you would finally like to impart your thoughts on whether you think congestion has got better or worse on those roads? It's a simple question that requires a simple answer. What you have shared fails to answer that basic question. Why? Because congestion is not pollution is it? It is a contributing factor to pollution is it not. In light of that........pollution has dropped all across of London has it not (according to Sadiq at record levels because of ULEZ)? So does the data you share have a control group to compare the drops of those roads adjacent to an LTN - surely that is needed to show whether the drop has been better or worse than those areas with no LTNs? Because if not then the data you share is utterly meaningless for this debate is it not? It's a bit like countering the suggestion that there has been more congestion on those roads with the "12% area-wide reduction in traffic" stat you like to throw around. It is utterly irrelevant at best, deliberately misleading at worst.

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.

No, usual gusto and blusto to avoid answering a very simple question - we all know why it is such a difficult question for folks on the active travel lobby side of things to answer. Congestion is worse post LTNs on Lordship Lane, Croxted and Dulwich Village to name but a few (even TFL and Southwark council engaged in a very ugly public spat on the cause of the Croxted congestion as TFL said it was being caused by the Dulwich LTNs). Everyone knows this - this is why it is so hard for some to admit. This is why the ludicrous stat of "12% area-wide reduction in vehicles therefore the LTNs are a success" is such a diversionary nonsense: Why 1) because the area-wide reduction in vehicles is actually a selectively plucked number of roads that did not include major displacement routes and 2) because what matters is congestion because a reduction number of cars means nothing if there is congestion as you are forcing them onto fewer available routes. And therein lies the issue. The more of these interventions the council makes a pig's ear of rolling out the more people lose faith and trust in our elected officials. The council desperately tries to roll these out after garnering minority support from (supporters and activists?) a few residents on a street. They then try to circumvent their own internal governance to roll them out without the proper due diligence and consultation. Then their botched plans come to light and more and more people become aware of the under-hand tactics used to get them installed. And then an election comes and they wonder why people tell them they are no longer trusted. Southwark Labour must think there are enough people who will vote for them no matter how badly they behave to save them in elections. The problem for them is that more and more people across Dulwich do not trust them anymore and are probably thinking it is time for change - that the one-party state has gone on for long enough and isn't actually doing much for local democracy or local constituents - that the council listens more to lobby groups than the people they took an oath to support.

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.

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

To be fair @malumbu I am merely questioning the impartiality of an "academic" who has been caught tearing down anti-LTN posters in her local shop and whom is the partner of the leading pro-LTN lobby group in West Dulwich (and whom she has lobbied for in a personal capacity)......who has also happened to have (been paid to) pen a load of "research" into LTNs that paints them in a very positive light....that their paymasters have used to tell everyone what a great idea they were. Anyway, on the subject of impartiality will you answer whether you think congestion has increased on Dulwich Village, Lordship Lane, Croxted Road or Underhill since the implementation of the LTNs....Or, like, @Earl Aelfheah have you suddenly lost the ability to have an opinion....;-)

@DulvilleRes I have told you many, many times before I have never met or spoken to anyone from One Dulwich. If you think you should try to distract attention away from the cozy relationship between councils and the active travel lobby is pathetic. BTW perhaps you, as a @DulvilleRes, can answer one part of the question that @Earl Aelfheah refuses to answer on increased congestion on Dulwich Village post-LTN implementation.. Why is this such a difficult question for some to answer?

It isn't but do you agree there was more congestion on roads like Croxted, Dulwich Village, Underhill and Lordship Lane post the Dulwich LTNs going in? I think we all know we might be waiting for a long time and this is probably a question that will be desperately ducked, dodged and avoided at all costs. And we all know why....

@Earl Aelfheah oh my.....come on, are you just playing silly for effect? Vehicle counts are utterly meaningless if those counted vehicles are spending time in congestion. Which report is this - is this the 2018 Traffic Management Study? Do you have a copy? But air quality has been improving everywhere hasn't it? Strongly links.....according to whom - you? There is a darn-sight more substantial local evidence of congestion than there is any evidence that the LTNs have had a positive contribution to pollution levels. Are you avoiding my question on whether you agree whether there was increased congestion on LTN boundary roads (Croxted, Lordship Lane, Underhill, Dulwich Village) post LTN. Yes or No?

There have been more than a few cozy relationships between councils and those leading the street by street campaigns around other LTNs - to the point where it feels less than organic. According to the BBC (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ge92xldrjo) Andrew Hanson who ran the Better Streets West Dulwich campaign, the lobby group pushing Lambeth for the West Dulwich LTN, is the partner of Anna Goodman and of course, beyond being famous for tearing down the LTN poster, she authored "impartial" reports on LTNs that Lambeth used. She admitted she was part of the local pro-LTN lobby group but did so only in a "personal capacity". I do hope the truth comes out about what happened with Ryedale, who was pulling the strings and why. People are owed an explanation on why such a ludicrous idea ever saw the light of day - yet alone was funded with tax-payers money.

Which was made worse by their intervention to improve active travel and air quality. Surely you must agree with that at least? But you still have nothing that links the LTN to the improvement in air quality - all you have is the council "modelling" that predicted a reduction in pollution? Do you have a link to this modelling? Was the modelling addressing roads within or outside the LTN? You're clearly trying to weave your way out of this so let's do this one question at a time: Do you agree that congestion got worse on boundary roads like DV, Croxted, Lordship Lane at the junction of the Grove Tavern and Underhill, for example, when the LTNs went in?

On the backdrop of pollution falling across all roads (thanks to Ulez according to Sadiq) - what @Earl Aelfheah cannot tell us is whether the drop on some of the congested roads impacted by the LTNs is better or worse than roads not impacted by the LTNs. What the data they are sharing doesn't tell you is if the increased congestion caused by displacement from the LTNs is increasing pollution on those roads. This is why the "12% area-wide drop in traffic" (whether you believe the 12% is accurate or not) is a misleading measure as if those cars are sitting in more congestion then pollution will be higher than if they are not. And everyone knows there has been more congestion on many of the displacement routes around the LTNs.

@Ladharrbeinn was the councillor who responded counting themselves as "one of the two" councillors who allocated the money? I wonder how much money they wasted on this ludicrous exercise.

And those who lap up and regurgitate the 12% area-wide reduction in traffic really arent doing their own due-diligence and are blindly believing anything the council spoon feeds them (see lack of monitoring on displacement routes like Underhill). It's a bit like those who thought there was majority support for the Dulwich LTN after the council duped them with the selective plucking of a stat on an infographic showing 55% "support" for the strategic aims of the LTN yet the same report had a stat that around 80% categorically said they didn't want it. Politicians treat the electorate as stupid because they know most will see the headline and not actually look at the detail and whether the headline is accurate. And we are the ones who should be embarrassed apparently..... @first mate surely it must be true because the council has said LTNs reduce pollution and has not provided any data showing an increase in pollution on congested roads....;-) In 2019 it was a problem they acknowledged but by 2021 they either found a miracle cure or just didn't do the monitoring to avoid having to do any further acknowledgments....,-)

Selective editing @Earl Aelfheah - well done - true to form as ever! Anyone with a modicum of commonsense can see what I was saying and how it applies to congestion caused by LTNs. Again, do you think you have evidence LTNs did not increase pollution on roads where congestion increased? I think we know the answer to that because post LTN implementation the council did not do granular monitoring as they had done for the pre-LTN OHS intervention that showed their new measures had increased pollution....why, because of increased congestion. One day I am sure the penny will drop for those who refuse to remove their blinkers. The worm is definitely turning and I am sure those of us on my side of the argument will be proved to have been right all along - that all LTNs do is cause displacement = increased congestion = increased pollution.

Because it was clearly a ludicrous decision that lacked commonsense. Yes I absolutely agree with you that the someone in the council could not shake off their entrenched views and see the bigger picture on this one - in fact their bigger picture didn't even extend to the neighbouring streets from Ryedale. Some might say that is blinkered.

Yup because it is not about the LTN and I made that very, very clear - you just chose to ignore that part....but we know the M.O by now! 😉 But they did increase congestion didn't they...and what does that mean? The answer can be found in that oh so telling but incredibly important and damning "single sentence" in that report from 2019 before the LTNs went in (just to be 100% clear you cannot try to twist my words). Increased congestion means increased pollution. Do you think you have evidence they didn't increase pollution on the roads with increased congestion........?

Pollution did rise when the council put in the active travel intervention before they closed the junction. That is absolute fact. You don't like it and I would suggest it is not me that is trying to deliberately mislead people. And I pointed out that congestion along Dulwich Village increased massively post closure which would suggest an increase in pollution was likely to be occurring on that stretch of road would it not? Yes, air quality monitoring in all locations (not just those around the LTN) have shown improvements have they not (thanks to ULEZ per Sadiq) so unless someone has modelled against a control group you can try to claim this has anything to do with the LTNs? And anyone who spends anytime around that junction knows that there is more queuing traffic there now than prior to implementation especially just before the DV timed closures come into effect and weekends seem to be particularly bad heading towards Red Post Hill (it was diabolical after the original installation of the cycle lane at the DV/Red Post junction and since the installation of the right turn green light - to try and mitigate the impact of the cycle lane - it is still bad).

@Earl Aelfheah do you ever bother actually reading the posts people make on the forum? If you actually bothered taking the time to read what I have said then it would all be very clear to you. I have always been very, very clear that the increases in pollution in this case were in relation to an active travel intervention before the junction was closed. The point being that often all these interventions do is create more congestion and increase pollution - which is EXACTLY what the 2019 intervention did. Of course, now the council doesn't do the same granular monitoring it used to do (as it did in 2019 in Dulwich Village) instead preferring to lean-in on bold "area-wide" statements about what a rip roaring success these measures have been - that folks like you regurgitate as proof of the "success" and use a tool to try and minimise any dissent against the council-led narrative. Meanwhile, the council tries to install an LTN on Ryedale due to the increase in traffic caused by the displaced traffic trying to avoid the congestion (and subsequent increases in pollution) caused by said LTNs. Now surely even you can see the problem here and dissect what might be going on and why the council is moving away from localised granular monitoring. Yes, that's the argument made by some, but it's not what the data shows. Whose data might that be - I refer my right honourable friend to my previous comments? I think @fishboy is spot on and this is exactly what LTNs do - this is why London is one of the most congested cities in Europe - there is less and less traffic but it is being forced down fewer and fewer roads and so congestion is increasing. But Aldred and co aren't being funded by TFL et al to show that - they are being funded to show how successful they are - and when a report was being written that cast doubt on the "everything is awesome" narrative look what happened it - it got killed. I am finally glad to see that so much of the nonsense spouted by the active travel lobby is being utterly dispelled by reality rather than the fantasy they were allowed to peddle (no pun intended) post Covid. You can't spin your way out of issues like decreasing bus times - eventually the truth will come out and we are now heading back in the right direction with the rational folks really questioning what is actually going on.

Power to the People!!! Well done the sensible people who fought this. There still remains, however, a lot of questions for the council and councillors to address about how they ended up in this mess, why they wasted tax payers money taking this approach (which Cllr McAsh admits was not their usual approach), who was trying to force this through and why they were so keen to by-pass their own internal governance. And beware....McAsh suggests they will be back again (I suspect after the election if Labour wins that ward). I very much suspect the impending elections forced this move from the council as they knew this would be a massive vote-loser for them - so use your vote wisely Dulwich Hill - this particular Labour leopards don't ever change their spots! I do very much hope that any potential candidate for the ward (from any party) is pushed by residents to get answers and assurances this cannot happen again - the council should never have let it get to this point and someone needs to be held accountable. After the News got in touch, James McAsh, the Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets and Waste, said the council had dropped the measures. He said: “We recently shared proposals to close Ryedale to motor vehicles in response to concerns about through-traffic and vehicle speeds. These measures were intended to be trialled under an Experimental Traffic Management Order, allowing their impact to be properly tested. While this is not our usual approach, we were keen to urgently address concerns. “Since then, we have received considerable feedback from the local community about the possible impact of the scheme on the wider area. We have listened and decided to stop the scheme and instead, take the time to review how best to address the concerns raised. This will inform the development of broader joined-up proposals as part of our Streets for People strategy, which includes extensive community engagement at every stage.

Here you go - see attached. Page 3. Thank goodness for the internet as the report has been long since removed from the council website! As I said, probably the last report the council put out that wasn't selectively plucking data that validated their position and was based on robust, consistent and local monitoring. One wonders why they decided to take a different approach when the LTNs went in....... Air Quality: comparing before and after data shows that there has been a moderate increase in NO2 QW7-Dulwich Village junction Monitoring Report May 2019 (4).pdf