Ryedale SE22 - Proposal to block end of Ryedale at junction of Underhill Road - January 2026 NOT NOW GOING AHEAD

[Rockets]

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.

[jimbo1964]

Well it's only paused pending review. Something will happen at some point. 

[Spartacus]

38 minutes ago, jimbo1964 said:

Well it's only paused pending review. Something will happen at some point. 

With May fast approaching, anythings possible 🤔

[first mate]

At the last council election, Southwark Labour's manifesto contained no mention of the road/traffic management issues they imposed after getting in. As jimbo 1964 suggests, they are biding their time. It has all gone quiet on Ryedale and the Melbourne Grove South CPZ plan, as Councillors don't want to frighten the horses. 

[DulvilleRes]

On 12/02/2026 at 16:43, Rockets said:

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

How about your cozy relationship with One Dulwich @Rockets? This will be the shadowy and opaque outfit that no one knows who runs, or who has met their considerable expenses, yet you have been very happy to post their press releases and parrot their anti-council attack lines without (you claim) bothering to find out who they are. Feels less than organic to me. 

[Spartacus]

@DulvilleRes is this who you think runs one dulwich 😂

[Rockets]

@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?

 

[malumbu]

On 12/02/2026 at 16:43, Rockets said:

 

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".

 

Having a go at an academic is really ridiculous.   According to your way of looking at life every civil servant who goes home on election day and votes for the party who is not governing is some sort of enemy within.

You are welcome to your views but slagging off researchers undermines them.

And so does your ignoring perfectly appropriate questions, and cherry picking to suit your agenda.

I'll be answering your questions, which I have answered before, on the other thread shortly. 

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, malumbu said:

Having a go at an academic is really ridiculous. 

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....;-)

Edited February 14 by Rockets

[ianr]

How is congestion assessed?

Edited February 16 by ianr

[alice]

Looks like both our current Dulwich Hill councillors are not restanding . 

[alice]

On 03/02/2026 at 22:55, malumbu said:

@alice why is it funny to smear academics?  Do you agree with Trump about paracetamol?  Or with Piers Corbyn about the Covid vaccine and that Climate Change is fake?  I'm making a serious point.  I look forward to hearing your take.

I’ve just noticed this.  I don’t understand why you have addressed all these rhetorical questions to me.

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 14/02/2026 at 17:17, Rockets said:

@Earl Aelfheah refuses to answer on increased congestion on Dulwich Village post-LTN implementation..

As I’ve already noted, there’s no evidence that congestion on Dulwich Village has increased since the LTN was introduced. If you have data showing otherwise, I’m happy to look at it.

Regarding your other claims (higher pollution, more crime, and more collisions), multiple datasets indicate that all of these have actually decreased. Perhaps you could explain why you believe the opposite?

You’ve also suggested that the work of Professor Aldred and Professor Goodman is corrupt, not by engaging with their research methods or findings, but by questioning their character. If that is your position, are you accusing their co‑authors, peer reviewers, and the academic journals that publish their work of being misled or complicit? What about the many studies in this field that neither of them contributed to? I assume you can point to robust, peer‑reviewed research that supports your stance?

As far as I can tell, you have dismissed every source of peer‑reviewed evidence available, along with independent consultants’ modelling, traffic‑count data, years of air‑quality monitoring results, and most police statistics on crime, collisions, injuries, and fatalities.

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

You’ve also suggested that the work of Professor Aldred and Professor Goodman is corrupt, not by engaging with their research methods or findings, but by questioning their character.

Where have I said it is "corrupt". This putting words into people's mouths is really becoming a problem isn't it?

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

As I’ve already noted, there’s no evidence that congestion on Dulwich Village has increased since the LTN was introduced. If you have data showing otherwise, I’m happy to look at it.

Just because the council has not measured it does not mean it isn't happening. If you spent much time in Dulwich Village you would see it - but I know you only believe something if the council tells you it is so - and you often repeat it as fact when it actually is not so!

I mean, cast your mind back to when there was one mighty fall out between TFL and local councillors, when TFL stated that congestion on Croxted Road was being caused by the Dulwich LTNs. You can't deny that can you?

And remember when the LTNs went in and the council having to put a right-turn filer light at the junction of DV and Red Post Hill....why? Because of the congestion being caused by the interventions.

Can you counter either of those?

And what do you actually think - you know, what is the opinion you have, that is not fed to you by the council or reliant on council supplied data - do you think there is more or less congestion in Dulwich Village post LTNs? I still don't think you have ever actually answered this - you seem to take the view that if there is no data then it can't be happening.

And actually, given the subject of this thread do you think the Ryedale closure would have led to more or less congestion on Dunstan's?

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I assume you can point to robust, peer‑reviewed research that supports your stance?

Clearly not because TFL and the Mayor's office don't fund reports that do not support their stance....but when their funded research does stray into territory they would rather not go to they kill the reports. This is the very definition of activist research - especially when authored by people who are activists and lobbyists themselves.

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

As far as I can tell, you have dismissed every source of peer‑reviewed evidence available, along with independent consultants’ modelling, traffic‑count data, years of air‑quality monitoring results, and most police statistics on crime, collisions, injuries, and fatalities.

And, to be fair, you have lapped them up because it aligns with your ideology - often repeating stats fed by the council which have been, ahem, selectively plucked by them.

Edited Friday at 19:35 by Rockets

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 20/02/2026 at 17:25, Rockets said:

Where have I said it is "corrupt". This putting words into people's mouths

You’ve repeatedly implied that their work is unreliable and biased - calling them “activist researchers” and suggesting their peer‑reviewed papers should be “filed accordingly.” You may not have used the word corrupt, but repeatedly questioning their professional integrity amounts to the same thing. You can’t smear people and then act offended when someone points it out.

You’ve dismissed every source of peer‑reviewed evidence, as well as independent consultants’ modelling, traffic‑count data, years of air‑quality monitoring, and most police statistics on crime, collisions, injuries, and fatalities. And now you suggest that anyone who considers this substantial body of evidence relevant, does so out of ideology. Surely you can see the problem? This is post‑truth reasoning. You’ve offered nothing to support your claims except conspiracy thinking and an unwillingness to accept that a decision made more than five years ago didn’t go your way.

Edited 16 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Jules-and-Boo]

.

Edited 22 hours ago by Jules-and-Boo

[Rockets]

7 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

You may not have used the word corrupt, but repeatedly questioning their professional integrity amounts to the same thing. You can’t smear people and then act offended when someone points it out.

I didn't use the word corrupt. You said I did. You're putting words into people's mouths again. 

7 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

You’ve offered nothing to support your claims except conspiracy thinking and an unwillingness to accept that a decision made more than five years ago didn’t go your way.

But the worm is turning and people are finally seeing through the deliberately misleading noise and starting to challenge councils on their plans. I think more LTNs have been blocked, delayed or removed in recent times - why? Because the wider public are increasingly aware of the games the councils, authorities and active travel lobbyists have been playing for years. Remember when people said it was a "small vocal minority" who opposed these changes - well that has obviously changed else councils would not be doing U-turn after U-turn.

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

I didn't use the word corrupt. You said I did.

No. I didn’t quote you as using that word (when I quote you, it’s in quotation marks). But let’s be clear - you have repeatedly accused them of being activist researchers and attacked their motivations. You have suggested that their published work is unreliable as a result and should be ‘filed accordingly’. That is suggesting their work is corrupt. Don’t smear people, and then try to walk away from it.

And of course, whilst you try to quibble over what does it doesn’t constitutes a claim that research is corrupt, and pretend you’re some sort of freedom fighter (“the worm is turning” 😳🤣), I note that you still have no answer to any of the questions posed, and no evidence for any of your claims.

Edited 14 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

No. I didn’t quote you as using that word (when I quote you, it’s in quotation marks).

Ha ha ha......we all can see what you do......you do it all the time and your quotation marks get-me-out of-jail card is laughable.

I have been very clear why I have a problem with activist researchers being touted as impartial. I, and many other, have a problem with that. You don't. We will never agree. C'est la vie.

I just refer you to what @Penguin68 said in the FOI responses thread. Clearly someone who has a lot more experience of research than you or I and someone who clearly knows what they are talking about.....I think that pretty much rests our case for the prosecution!

Edited 13 hours ago by Rockets