Rockets

TFL and Southwark have found money-trees of cash for cycle lane infrastructure so one does have to question why this pedestrian infrastructure has taken so long to get funded...but I suspect the answer is in the question I posed.... Nobody is saying it has been made deliberately longer but you cannot deny that there seems scant regard for additional congestion that any works create now for drivers and little to no co-ordination across an area. It is the pro-cycle and active travel community who bang on and on about the need for "nudge" tactics which are stick rather than carrot and when I see what happens locally it seems that this is being applied - local authorities don't seem to care about problems that these works cause and do little to mitigate for the congestion created by them. We have seen Southwark waste huge amounts of our money to create "nudge" tactics - like the ludicrous cycle lane along Sydenham Hill which has clearly been designed and installed as a traffic calming measure above anything else.

The Lordship Lane approach is Southwark's and Southwark are involved in the discussion about impact on local roads - this is not being done by TFL in isolation. In fact, back in 2019 it was called out by Southwark as one of the 20 or so major projects across the borough as part of their Local Implementation Plan 3 (it was consulted on in 2018) - this of course does beg the question why it has taken quite so long to get it executed.

They don't hate South London but they do hate drivers. Whilst there has been a desperate need for a pedestrian crossing at that junction forever, and I am glad they are finally doing it, I do wonder if the council are more than happy to have 13 weeks of severe traffic disruption. There seems to be a willingness across London to create "nudge" tactics to try and get people out of cars by making travelling by car utterly horrendous so I cannot help but think that local authorities are not looking for ways to minimise disruption. I was always led to believe, maybe incorrectly, that there would be co-ordination between local authorities and works planning to look at minimising traffic disruption and I look at what has been happening recently (A205 works, works on Sydenham Hill, works in Forest Hill, works on Honor Oak Road, works on East Dulwich Grove) and it seems authorities are happy to allow major routes to be massively disrupted and congested. Throw into that that many of the disbursement routes that used to exist are now closed due to LTNs and you can see why there is are increasing congestion (and pollution) problems as a result and why many believe this is a strategic ploy by some authorities to try and "nudge" people out of cars.

Any time someone puts out a very long report with a short press release summarising the "findings" you should be suspicious and rightly so. When you spend a little time looking at it you can see some glaring spin elements....for example...see point 4 of the press release...now everyone has to admit that the way it is is written you would believe that all four of the bullets are due to ULEZ.... https://www.london.gov.uk/media-centre/mayors-press-releases/new-evidence-reveals-all-londoners-are-now-breathing-cleaner-air-following-first-year-expanded-ultra But look at what the actual report says....that the points raised in bullet 4 of the press release "are not attributable to ULEZ". The press release was clearly written to mislead as the authors know full well that in the first to post media world few will actually look at the detail and will just regurgitate the press release headlines. It's basic PR spin 1-0-1 - be less than 100% transparent, your supporters will parrot the headlines and by the time anyone bothers to look at the detail the narrative has been set. Given the manipulation of the data in bullet 4 you have to question what else might be less than an accurate reflection of reality in the report. https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-03/London-wide ULEZ One Year Report_Mar2025.pdf

Ha ha, you'll be pleased to know that private schools are now off! 😉 BTW I presume Southwark Cyclists haven given their blessing to these new measures..;-)...I read the document form 2020 and laughed when I read the below as this was the infamous document where the council rolled over to accommodate the requests of Southwark Cyclists but ignored the input from the emergency services.....and was the first sign of who was pulling the council's strings.... Southwark Cyclists Southwark cyclists are in favour of the cycling improvementsin this area. They requested some added cycling road markings and a minimum width of 1.2m for the segregated lane. We have accommodated all the suggestions from Southwark cyclists.

Is there any LTN that has majority support in its local area (and i am not talking about a single street that has the closure)? It seems like they are installed on the whims of councillors and a few vocal activist groups who are in cahoots with the council and then residents have to live with the dire displacement consequences and are then ignored and belittled by councils and the pro-LTN lobby when they dare say they may not be working.

I found the aborted plan from 2020. APPENDIX 1 PECKHAM RYE.pdf

DulvilleRes - any concerns from your side about the stories of Labour councillors and award winning active travel lobbyists infiltrating the "properly constituted local organisation" Dulwich Society transport sub-committee to the point that Dulwich Society had to intervene and state that that committee did not speak on behalf of DS and that they were impartial to the DV closure...... It seems there is a hefty dose of double-standards at play here or is that fatuous?

Dog Kennel Hill is always good for some thigh burn!

Yeah Earl...take heed of Malumbu's words....;-)

I am sure this is part of the plan they had for this part of Peckham back when they were going LTN mad and where they prioritised the input from the cycle lobby over the input from the emergency services. Does anyone have the old pdf from then as that will probably show how far these plans will end-up extending? I reckon details will be somewhere on the old LTN thread from back in the day - was it what they referred to as Phase 3? They are clearly coming back to have a second go after they failed to get it in back in 2020/2021.

This modus operandi always happens when someone scrutinises what people post - some don't seem to like any sort of scrutiny or accountability - which is a trait that is depressingly familiar amongst many on the pro- lobby and actually one of the reasons this issue will never go away - because people are fed-up with the council propagandists who will do anything to try and prove that they are right - whether they are or not. They are tired of the cultish behaviour.

For pedestrians due to cyclists. I asked the question does the data exist and if so who collects it and where does it come from. Does, for example, a child being knocked over by a cyclist get recorded if no police or ambulance attended? Because it comes from "TFL" and you could provide no detail on how it was collected - is it based on police reports, ambulance attendance, insurance claims.... No I asked you the question whether you knew that the displacement routes were safer. A reduction in accidents on a closed road is one thing, whether the displaced traffic causes accidents and issues somewhere else has to be considered. It was misleading because you did not acknowledge that it included lockdown - it's the very definition of misleading information., Especially as you drew a conclusion from said misleading info. I posed the question whether you do this deliberately. Certainly if you post comparative data, draw conclusions from that to back up your argument and forget that a large part of that time was during lockdown then, unless you admit it was an "oversight" then it does lead one to believe it was misleading.

Yup, clutching at straws. Have you heard the saying: time does not heal all wounds.....? This narrative that somehow just because something happened years ago we should all just live with it is a narrative that people who know there is something to hide like to circulate.

Ahem, Southwark Cyclists were also whipping up support to respond to a consultation......you seem to have ignored that part....and still every consultation has gone against the council. Again, don't let the truth get in the way of a good story.... You're clutching at straws a little bit now. Clearly the weight of evidence suggests there is significant resistance from local residents. The problem is the council just listens to the vocal minority and try to steamroll their ideological plans through...see the tactics employed in the Dulwich Society.

Didn't they try to do this when they were going LTN mad after lockdown? Is this the rehashed version of that (which Phase was it) which I think was dropped when someone worked out it was going to be a displacement disaster <removed>

Did you not say this in relation to your misleading stats.....?

March46 doesn't like the truth to get in the way of a good story!!!!

Malumbu...????

Only when I pointed out the misleading data you had provided....sigh....

....misleading data.....for one third of your second set of data England was in the midst of three national lockdowns. At no point during lockdown did traffic reach the average level for the preceding three years (in fact at one point recorded road traffic was down 63% on the preceding 3 year average). Interesting chart I found as well plotting the increase in cycle traffic, casualties and fatalities comparing 2020 to the previous three years.

Well, every time local residents have been polled by the council the majority have made their feelings very clear (and the council ignores them)....do you have anything that contradicts that...if so do please share it with us as you've presented nothing to suggest otherwise?

Because it really does not concern me in the slightest, you are the one who is utterly obsessed with trying to paint them as some sort of transport wing of the 1922 Committee. I am more concerned with what they are doing to represent the voice of those who do not agree with the way the council is forcing changes onto local residents that the majority do not want. And this is why I think you are trying to tar them as Tories - because you think that will help turn public opinion against them. Meanwhile rumours abound that local Labour councillors and leading active travel lobbyists infiltrated the Dulwich Society transport sub-committee leading to the Dulwich Society to have to state that the transport sub-committee did not speak for DS and that DS was impartial when it came to the DV junction....are you as concerned about that...I suspect not because that move was to support an agenda you agree with?

No I rubbish it because you are presenting (deliberately?) misleading data.

Looks pretty unsafe to me - what do you think Malumbu?