Rockets

No these figures are caused by congestion I have never blamed that solely on LTNs - please at least try to be accurate and not put words into my mouth. Now are LTNs and other active travel interventions contributing to increased congestion - undoubtedly and seemingly to an extent that is causing the London Assembly some concern due to, amongst other things, the impact it is having on buses. London congestion continues to get worse on a backdrop of declining vehicles on the roads so clearly something else is going on and it is having a massive economic and environmental impact. You cant sugarcoat it anymore - the interventions are not working and there needs to be a fundamental rethink. Trying to throw in ludicrous programmes like Ryedale and Peckham Rye, both of which clearly impact more people negatively than they benefit, shows just how out of control the active travel obsessives, and the lobby groups they call friends, are within local councils.

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.