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

[Rockets]

Just now, malumbu said:

The scale of this is tiny.  And the response on this thread is just silly.  All schemes will have some inconvenience - but this one is pretty small.  It is not stopping people doing their normal journey.  There is a tiny detour.  These particular streets have fairly limited traffic.  Really no need to go on  about social justice.  Bigger worries in our world.

This is utter myopic blinkered nonsense.

So @malumbu if as you suggest, these streets have "fairly limited traffic", then why on earth do the council need to put this in?

And by doing so are they causing that "fairly limited traffic" to evaporate or displace? If it displaces where does it go? I very much suspect you know this is wrong but feel the need to try and defend your/not your beloved council.

4 minutes ago, malumbu said:

@Rockets how can you not possibly deny as a whole motorists need to use their cars smarter.  This is irrespective of the great harm you feel due to LTNs.  And as far as I am aware this is not one of your local roads, as you are particularly vexed about the other side of LL.

Nobody is suggesting car drivers don't need to be smarter but anyone with any commonsense knows this will will have zero impact on car usage but will have an impact on road usage and may well, quite tellingly, lead to more congestion and subsequent pollution.

I can guarantee you the Southwark council interventions on my side of Dulwich have had a contributing factor to increases in car traffic on the Ryedale side of Dulwich.

To be fair @malumbunone of the roads you always have an opinion on are definitely not "your local roads" either - I mean, you're not even a resident of Dulwich or Southwark are you? So is it not a bit rich and hypocritical of you to try and throw that one at me don't you think!

 

[Angelina]

Rockets - I don't think all posters know the background as to why this has happened, so don't understand the frustration 

[malumbu]

I regularly use these roads.  Usually as a cyclist.  Occasionally on the P13.  And occasionally as a driver.  I know Underhill Road very well, I expect better than you.  I use the shops, the surgery and until the pub was ruined that too.  My fave cafe is the one down there.  I know where William Henry Pratt was born.  So I am in a position to talk about it.

If you read my first post you would see I questioned why they would pick this road having such a low rate of traffic.

You go on an on about displacement of traffic due to LTNs.  If more decided not to drive, or shared journeys it would be better for all.  But for many it is a hard habit to break.  I have dealings with a number of older men, who drive because they see it as a right, social status and the like.  I question why they don't use their bus pass more, as for some journeys it would make better sense but they insist on driving.  That is not an ableist or ageist comment, that is common sense, and just an easy example.  There are many other groups including the ones that say "well I would use public transport if it was better". They are particularly irritating.  

 

[Rockets]

8 minutes ago, malumbu said:

I know Underhill Road very well, I expect better than you. 

You may expect wrong......are you basing this incorrect conclusion on the fact I live near the Dulwich LTN?

8 minutes ago, malumbu said:

You go on an on about displacement of traffic due to LTNs.  If more decided not to drive, or shared journeys it would be better for all.  But for many it is a hard habit to break. 

Of course I do because displacement is very much a thing associated with LTNs. LTNs do not lead to "evaporation" they lead to displacement and whilst the council will no doubt herald how the closure of one end of Ryedale has led to a drop in through-traffic on that particular road they will be less keen to talk about what it is is going to do to traffic and pollution on Dunstans.

The whole plan is utterly daft and really shows how unhinged the council has become.

Edited January 14 by Rockets

[malumbu]

So we are not getting evaporation because too ,many people still use their cars?  Do you not agree that if we used our cars wiser there would be less congestion?

Do you not agree the means to do this are both soft (nudge, good citizenship) and hard - cost/road restrictions?

I expect that you make better decisions than most when choosing to drive. Don't let your dislike of LTNs, Southwark, Labour etc put you off encouraging others to do the right thing.

[Rockets]

1 minute ago, malumbu said:

So we are not getting evaporation because too ,many people still use their cars?

These interventions do not deliver evaporation. I still laugh that councils referred to evaporation - which was a ludicrous choice of words as we all know that evaporation condenses and falls somewhere else.....which is displacement.

4 minutes ago, malumbu said:

Do you not agree that if we used our cars wiser there would be less congestion?

Of course but these types of intervention don't deliver less congestion, they deliver more congestion. They are a blunt instrument. 

6 minutes ago, malumbu said:

I expect that you make better decisions than most when choosing to drive. Don't let your dislike of LTNs, Southwark, Labour etc put you off encouraging others to do the right thing.

My dislike is of utterly stupid interventions like this which is clearly going to Rob Peter to pay Paul. The fact someone signed off this plan shows how out of touch the council is and why they should be stripped of the powers they have been given. They are abusing the powers of their office.

[alice]

Now, I wonder why it’s all gone quiet on the Rydale front. 
 

[Penguin68]

Because those who are against it have done all they could do for the moment, and the Rydale-ers who precipitated this are waiting till it's implemented on Monday to crack open the champagne. And maybe praying that the rise in their house price value doesn't top £1,999.999!

[malumbu]

I'm a big Rydel-er myself ever since I saw the film, although I understand it was a stage play first.  I'll post a track too

[Cancerian]

I’ve been on the forum every day and some posts just suddenly pop up like this one which suddenly had some replies, which I’ve not seen until today? Is there some kind of delayed responses to not just this subject but other subjects on the forum? Just curious. 

[CT_R]

From the Council meeting approving the temporary order https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s130470/Report Ryedale experimental closure.pdf

 

it actually says they know it will adversely affect Dunstans and St A - but will deal with that later 

 

from paragraph 15. 

Note: These objectives will be achieved by reducing the volume of traffic on

Ryedale. This reduction of conflict would make Ryedale a safer and more

pleasant environment for pedestrians and cyclists. Officers have made ward

councillors aware that the neighbouring roads of Dunstans Road and St Aidans

Road will suffer the detrimental effect of displaced traffic. Councillors are happy

to proceed with these proposals and investigate Dunstans and St Aidans Roads

at a later date.

[teetomthomas]

Suggested route home for Balchierians. Streets For People. 

[Penguin68]

Well that will certainly reduce auto mileage - not. Brilliant. So glad our council is traffic planning for us, but then I have petrol shares. 

[spider69]

Same as Champion Hill, we will come back to it, then forgoten. still told , true or not, a cllr moved there..

[Insuflo]

2 hours ago, teetomthomas said:

Suggested route home for Balchierians. Streets For People. 

Streets for people, not for cars and the selfish minority who insist on driving everywhere. This is the end, the very end, of the internal combustion engine era. Why is that so difficult to grasp?

[Rockets]

13 hours ago, Insuflo said:

This is the end, the very end, of the internal combustion engine era. Why is that so difficult to grasp?

Because it is clearly just a wish of yours that has no bearing on reality perhaps?

What amazes me is that some people struggle to grasp the issue here - those 1,000 vehicle journeys that the council claims go down Ryedale don't just evaporate when this measure goes in - they do down Dunstans and other roads in the area.

 

16 hours ago, CT_R said:

it actually says they know it will adversely affect Dunstans and St A - but will deal with that later 

Of course it does but in the bizarre world they live in the council thinks this is acceptable - that somehow the residents of Dunstan's and St Aiden's are acceptable collateral damage. And we all know what they mean when they say they will "investigate Dunstan's and St Aiden's at a later date". That means they'll go to the residents and ask them if they want some form of intervention for a problem the council were 100% behind creating.

It's ridiculous and the fact some on here like @Insuflo blindly spout the council rhetoric shows how far down the hole some people are - and unfortunately for the rest of us this seems to be the only group of people the council will listen to.

[Penguin68]

The Labour Party in Southwark is already on record as wishing to drive out (sic) private vehicles (of any sort, including all electric) from the borough in its entirety. The only option for those who take this seriously, and oppose it, and Ryedale is a good reason to take this seriously, is not to vote for candidates who support this policy.

Unlike Insuflo who thinks it's about the internal combustion engine, it's not.

Planters block all vehicles with more than 2 wheels. And the majority of buses are still traditional diesel. This is a policy which says if you can't walk or cycle there, you can't go there. 

If you are old, disabled, encumbered with children or luggage, or heavy shopping, we don't want you. 

[Insuflo]

“Encumbered with Children” sounds like it could be a business on Lordship Lane.

[malumbu]

The majority of buses in London can run exclusively, or for large periods of time, on electricity. Mayor Khan who has done a fantastic job in modernising the fleet, dare I say following on from Mayor Johnson (ignoring the idiotic decision to invest in a new Routemaster).  By 2030 all of the London fleet will be electric or hybrid.  Well done.  Perhaps this will prise some of the people I know who insist on driving despite their Freedom cards - not aimed at anyone specific on this site.  

[Rockets]

The more you spend time reviewing the council's documents the more you realise how absolutely bat-s**t crazy this plan is - could this be the very worst plan they have executed thus far - there have been a few.

For years that part of Dulwich has been blighted by the displacement caused by the LTNs in other parts of Dulwich and now they are putting something in that is going to make life even worse for those on Dunstan's and St Aidan's.

 

On 18/01/2026 at 18:44, CT_R said:

Officers have made ward

councillors aware that the neighbouring roads of Dunstans Road and St Aidans

Road will suffer the detrimental effect of displaced traffic. Councillors are happy

to proceed with these proposals and investigate Dunstans and St Aidans Roads

at a later date.

And this part of the council document is the most damning as it is basically council transport officers saying "you're going to create big problems by doing this" to the councillors and them saying "yeah, we know we know better than you and will deal with that later".

Let's hope those affected let the councillors know how annoyed they are at the ballot box in May - I hope people are trying to rally behind a tactical voting plan to unseat those who are backing this - they deserve it as they are showing utter contempt for their constituents (who don't live on Ryedale).

[first mate]

 

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

council transport officers saying "you're going to create big problems by doing this"

Or as Cllr McAsh might put it, "that's the whole point".

[Moovart]

It's beginning to look a bit like all three roads will eventually be blocked at Underhill so all through traffic will be along Barry Road and Wood Vale and Underhill between.  ☹️

[Penguin68]

That will make life in Underhill even worse. It is already blocked in rush hours with traffic attempting to enter or leave the South Circular because of blockages in the Village, it will now have to take traffic heading towards Peckham (or from it) as well for its length to Barry, where the junction has already been made bad by build outs to restrict traffic. And which has been completely blocked several times recently by Thames Water failures. God help us if anyone needs an ambulance or a fire engine locally. 

[malumbu]

I'm struggling to see the predictions of gridlock on Underhill.  Its a means to get to East Dulwich, Camberwell, Herne Hill and the like.  I'm not sure why on a normal day it is, or will be seen, as a serious rat run.  You go on about congestion during rush hour in the Village, this is caused, and has always been caused for the majority of times, by the school run.  Now if you campaigned to discourage parents driving their kids to school, that would be something that I would agree with.

@Rockets I expect this proposal has virtually no impact on you. As it has little on me.  Do you need to fight other peoples' battles?

[Spartacus]

7 minutes ago, malumbu said:

 

@Rockets I expect this proposal has virtually no impact on you. As it has little on me.  Do you need to fight other peoples' battles?

Pot and kettle moment here 🤣