Rockets

It's good to be back after my one-month forum suspension - still pleading my innocence on that one but I have served my time and am free again! 😉 Anyway, glad to see that nothing has changed since I have been away and it is good to be back and going to be on my very best behaviour so as to not incur the wrath of admin as they have told me I am on my second strike and have one left (I am sure my forum foes will be rubbing their hands in glee excitedly awaiting the slightest indiscretion to press the report button again and go running to teacher! ;-)). Per the other thread I thought it would be good to start a thread to throw some light on the way the council is conducting consultations and how there seems to be a concerted effort by cycle activist groups to influence local transport decisions - especially during Covid and how our council seem to be using the results from those consultations as justification for spending huge amounts of tax payers money on building cycle infrastructure. I was wondering whether the same tactic was being used for the Peckham works currently being considered because when that one was first mooted in 2020 the council prioritised the responses from the cycle lobby over that of the emergency services. Anyway, a consultation on the biggest cycling infrastructure white elephant on Sydenham Hill was started back in 2020. The council put flyers through the doors of 900+ local residents and the likes of LCC and Southwark Cyclists alerted their members to the consultation. The council had 123 respondents and used the responses from those 123 respondents (55 supporting the measures, 29 supporting the measures with changes and 36 not supporting the measures) as justification for the decision to proceed. The results are here and are taken from the attached report: What is interesting is the large number of non Southwark or Lewisham residents who responded (bizarrely, or perhaps deliberately misleadingly, categorised as Not resident of Sydenham Hill or surrounding road) and how the overwhelming majority of them supported the measures when the distribution of respondents from Southwark and Lewisham are far more evenly distributed across all options. Also when you look at the responses to some of the questions for a consultation on 20mph a lot of the most popular responses were about "Provide Cycle lanes" or "Provide Segregated Cycle Lanes". Maybe it is a co-incidence but it does look like non Southwark or Lewisham residents have influenced the consultation and gave the council the "mandate" they needed to move forward - which they duly did and then spent a huge amount of money on adding cycle infrastructure at huge cost that hardly anyone ever uses - the cost per cycle journey must be extortionate. I do also wonder whether building a cycle lane may have helped the council circumvent consultation rules given the powers that were given to them around active travel during Covid. The challenge is of course that it is hard to limit consultations to a certain number of streets (unless of course you are the council trying to shoehorn a single street CPZ in) but it does look as if the council, and those who support the council's ideological agenda, are tilting the playing field to create an unfair advantage to get their plans through and this, often, comes to the detriment of the very people they are supposed to be representing. I wonder if this trend is repeated across other consultations where the council has been victorious (of course, when things don't go their way they tell us that consultations are not referendum's and then make an executive decision to proceed anyway as they know what's best for us) or whether this was just a statistical one-off. Sydenham Hill summary report V3 (6).pdf Consultation-response-Southwark-Sydenham-Hill-20-mph-Mar-2020 (1).pdf

You don't but the problems for the cycle manufacturing industry were that they believed the nonsense being pedalled by the likes of Will Norman that there was going to be a seismic shift in cycling post-Covid which has just not materialised (except for Lime bike and delivery cyclist increases) despite the huge amount of money invested in cycling infrastructure. To be fair they don't have the best of track records....remember when Will Norman had to intervene after Southwark Councillors reduced TFL staff to tears after TFL dared to publish a report that said congestion at the Croxted Road junction with Norwood Road was being caused by displacement from the Dulwich Village LTNs..... Be nice.....the forum rules require it! 😉

Adding this line: Air quality has improved at 99% of air quality monitoring sites across London since 2019, and London’s air quality is improving at a faster rate than the rest of England [4, 5] ...to a press release extolling "evidence" of the positive results of ULEZ expansion one year one when the very report you are referring to says that those very points are not attributable to ULEZ is the very definition of misleading... Organisations usually have stringent and robust legal review of outgoing press releases and I am amazed this was allowed to be sent out.

Because it is an interesting example of how activist groups are being used to influence local decisions - how local residents are being forced out of local decision-making processes and are having to live with decisions catalysed by activist lobby groups. If you don't like the thread you can just not contribute and sometimes accountability comes a long time after those who imposed it thought they had got away with it!

I will start a new thread on Sydenham Hill as the results from that consultation back in 2020 are fascinating and show how pro-cycle lobby groups infiltrated the process and there are real parallels with the Peckham changes the council are proposing to make as they seem to be leaning on previous consultations that have sat on for a few years to then come back to roll out their plans on that basis.

Of course it is a good concept - but why is the Mayor feeling he has to put out misleading press releases to valid it?

The press release is massively misleading - designed to create positive headlines and distract the dis-tractable.... On what basis exactly......I am laughing heartily at this assertion....;-)

Sydenham Hill works has been dressed up as slowing traffic but back in 2020 when the 20mph consultation took place it was clear from the results of the survey that pro-cycle supporters threw their oar in to influence the results - a large percentage of local residents did not support the plans but were over-ridden by people not living locally who responded to the consultation.

Earl, this was a conversation about the impact it could have on the traders of Lordship Lane and why the CPZ may impact those traders. Why are you trying to flip the story to somehow suggest we are encouraging people to drive to Lordship Lane? I was stating facts based on the council's own report on how many people drive to Lordship Lane as it is a destination venue - that's not hyperbole.

I am hoping it has improved air quality but if the Mayor feels the need to mislead people in his press release then I do wonder whether it is doing what he says it is and how much of the "good news" is actually spin to help him justify his decision to go ahead with expansion. If it hasn't actually done anything to improve air quality then it plays into the hands of those who say this was just another revenue generating exercise at the expense of drivers and I have always been concerned that the Mayor and local authorities are happy to greenwash revenue-generation exercises and that one day it could actually do massive harm to the climate change challenge if it was all exposed as a falsehood and did nothing to positively impact the very reason to implement it. What do you think? Are you concerned that the Mayor feels the need to mislead - does that fill you with confidence?

I am not sure what to believe on ULEZ expansion I am afraid as when I read the press release that hails ULEX as a success and see the wilful manipulation of the narrative I question what else might be being skewed by the Mayor's office. Can we believe anything in the press release if that really basic issue has been manipulated so much? Does it not make you question the legitimacy of anything in the release? Why on earth did they think they could get away with that?

There are but between elections they pretty much do what they want and bend every process to get what they want - even when it goes against the wishes of their constituents. On the subject of Lordship Lane I do not see how anyone can say that they do not think it will have an effect. Lordship Lane is a destination location and whilst many fo us walk to and from the shops there are still a large number of people who drive to Lordship Lane (the last council survey said that it was a large proportion - I think about 25% but it was done some time ago - who drive from neighbouring boroughs). Lordship Lane is already under threat from soulless chains like Megans, Jo the Juice and Chipotle so I would suggest that anyone who wants to try to retain what remains of the unique nature of the Lane and supports the independent traders does everything they can to resist this blinkered CPZ land grab.

I don't think anyone is surprised that the council have returned to their borough-wide CPZ plans so quickly - they now clearly have to take one road at a time and we can expect a similar approach across the rest of Dulwich. Dulwich spoke and told them we do not want CPZs but they are now chipping off one road at a time and creating parking pressures that never existed before. Around Calton they made Townley and Calton a CPZ which is utterly ludicrous as they are the two most sparsely populated streets in the whole borough and they have created parking pressure problems across Beauval, Dovercourt, Woodwarde, Druce etc which never existed before. No doubt a few knows on the door of some Labour members and they'll get a hdnaful of people to support the drive for a CPZ and before you know it another consultation for those streets will be run. Southwark wilfully manipulate the process to their benefit and there is nothing anyone can ever do about it as they cannot be held accountable.

I don't think anyone has admitted this before but good to know that this is how tax payers money is being wasted. I wonder how much the works on Sydenham Hill cost - it was so clearly, as Malumbu states, an effort to slow traffic rather than aid active travel and is probably the most ludicrous example of the nonsensical approach to road transport that our council is taking - all at a time when cycling is struggling - did anyone see the articles saying bike sales plummeted again and are now at levels not seen since the 1970s - it's clear that despite the massive investment in cycling people are not switching to it long-term. I whole-heartedly support the need for the pedestrian crossing at that junction - I have been calling for it for a long time as that junction is so difficult to cross - my point (which I believe there is some substance to) is that council officials really are not at all interested in trying to keep traffic flowing freely and that they may actually see massive congestion as part of the "nudge" strategic approach. There is clearly no joined up thinking any more in terms of road infrastructure planning and execution of projects.

Not my own spin but massive spin from the Mayor's office and it's in black and white and undeniable - the press release is misleading isn't it as it alludes to the fact that "all Londoners are breathing cleaner air following the first year of the expanded Ultra Low Emission Zone" and then in the bullets of the standfirst of the release states that: Air quality has improved at 99% of air quality monitoring sites across London since 2019, and London’s air quality is improving at a faster rate than the rest of England [4, 5] But they very report that line is taken from states that those specific trends are not attributable to ULEZ....yet the press release very much makes the claim that they are. This is wilful manipulation by whomever wrote, reviewed and then signed off the press release - I presume the independent advisory group of experts did not get a chance to review the press release as I suspect they would have pulled the Mayor's office up on the fact that it is misleading. You cannot use that bullet as a claim that this is due to ULEZ as the press release does when the very report it is taken from clearly and categorically states it is not. Yet another example of how those who are pushing this narrative will bend and distort the truth to their advantage - it should be really concerning to everyone that this is how people are willing to behave. More than happy to hear any other argument as to why the Mayor presented it as such but it's pretty clear what they have done here.

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....;-)