Ryedale SE22 - Proposal to block end of Ryedale at junction of Underhill Road - January 2026

[Rockets]

Oh my @malumbu you have excelled yourself on that one. Wonderful, just wonderful - can we get that framed please?

The most obvious answer (beyond the one where I point out I used to live on a road off Underhill - which I refrained from doing when you tried to claim you knew Underhill better than me) is that at least I live in the same town/borough as the road in question....ahem.....;-)

You may not see the irony in my post as I suspect you didn't see the irony in your own post!

 

[Penguin68]

34 minutes ago, malumbu said:

  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. 

Nonsense, the Underhill Road congestion occurs during the natural rush hours (in the evening 17.00 to 18.00) not associated with school times, and is of traffic leaving or entering the South Circular. I'm talking about traffic that would have entered the South Circular from roads around the Village and which are now blocked from doing so at key 'rush hour' periods. The congestion isn't now 'in the village'. It's outside my front door! 

[march46]

There are a few flaws in your argument @Penguin68.

1. The timed restrictions in Dulwich Village aren’t active between 5-6pm when you say there is a problem, in fact they end at 4.30pm.
2. If you are ever in Dulwich Village between 5-6pm you will see northbound queues, as there always was during the evening rush hour. 

Edited Tuesday at 16:59 by march46
Typo

[MonkeyNews]

It isn’t supposed to be in effect already? I’ve just walked past the supposed closure and the road is open.

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Penguin68 said:

Nonsense, the Underhill Road congestion occurs during the natural rush hours (in the evening 17.00 to 18.00) not associated with school times, and is of traffic leaving or entering the South Circular. I'm talking about traffic that would have entered the South Circular from roads around the Village and which are now blocked from doing so at key 'rush hour' periods. The congestion isn't now 'in the village'. It's outside my front door! 

Spot on. This is why the council refused to monitor Underhill as they knew it was massive displacement route and if they had included it they would not have been able to claim a "reduction in areawide traffic post LTN". The omission of Underhill from their monitoring was very deliberate.

Underhill has been soaking up the displacement from the Dulwich LTNs since they went in and anyone who argues against it clearly hasn't got the foggiest what they are talking about and are probably being driven by ideology rather than reality.

[CT_R]

1 hour ago, MonkeyNews said:

It isn’t supposed to be in effect already? I’ve just walked past the supposed closure and the road is open.

Delayed ‘procurement issues’

 

[malumbu]

6 hours ago, Rockets said:

Oh my @malumbu you have excelled yourself on that one. Wonderful, just wonderful - can we get that framed please?

The most obvious answer (beyond the one where I point out I used to live on a road off Underhill - which I refrained from doing when you tried to claim you knew Underhill better than me) is that at least I live in the same town/borough as the road in question....ahem.....;-)

You may not see the irony in my post as I suspect you didn't see the irony in your own post!

 

I understand you live further away.  Underhill was my cycle commute for twenty years.  I still use it regularly inlcluding yesterday and today, pretty quiet at 8.30.  Why can't you accept the simple fact that you are not particularly close to the affected roads and are affected as much as I am.   It's a fact.  The nah nah nah playground response isn't very constructive.

[Rockets]

On 14/01/2026 at 17:13, malumbu said:

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

@malumbu I was merely addressing your playground antics....to be fair it does seem as if you started it...

I do live further away now but for a long time lived a darn sight closer to Underhill and Ryedale than you do so just letting you know you're trying to pick on the wrong person in the playground. This one knows the area very well and has been consistently very vocal about the negative impact the LTNs have had on Underhill as I saw it first hand.

 

 

Edited Tuesday at 22:14 by Rockets

[malumbu]

5 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

Nonsense, the Underhill Road congestion occurs during the natural rush hours (in the evening 17.00 to 18.00) not associated with school times, and is of traffic leaving or entering the South Circular. I'm talking about traffic that would have entered the South Circular from roads around the Village and which are now blocked from doing so at key 'rush hour' periods. The congestion isn't now 'in the village'. It's outside my front door! 

You really need you to explain this as it confuses me.  There is congestion for example at Barry Road, as you would expect where it meets a main road.  There is congestion sometimes due to the P13.  I do not see Underhill as a particularly busy road,  It is a main road so of course it is meant to take traffic,  I really don;t know what this displacement you and others go on about.  Are you saying that it takes traffic off Forest Hill Road and Lordship Lane?  That is a new one on me.

The South Circ, apart from when there was roadworks at the Grove Tavern, appears no better of worse than it has been for most years I have lived in SE London.  If you are talking about traffic from the South Circ using underhill then Wood Vale and Underhill at the junction would see a lot of traffic,  I don't see that and would question why it would go this way rather than down LL.  Similarly if they went some convoluted way such as Friern, Uplands or Barry Road onto Underhill.

I'm afraid it just doesn't add up.  That or I am living in a different world.  

4 minutes ago, Rockets said:

@malumbu I was merely addressing your playground antics....to be fair it does seem as if you started it...

 

No you are not, you are not addressing my point but avoiding it.

Just answer the question, does this scheme affect you?  It hardly affects me.  

I await your answer in anticipation (and hope).

[Rockets]

12 minutes ago, malumbu said:

I do not see Underhill as a particularly busy road,  It is a main road so of course it is meant to take traffic, 

Oh my.....if you think Underhill is a main road I would suggest you need a bit of a rethink.

12 minutes ago, malumbu said:

I'm afraid it just doesn't add up.  That or I am living in a different world.  

I think you have summed things up quite well!

12 minutes ago, malumbu said:

Just answer the question, does this scheme affect you?  It hardly affects me.  

Yet you feel compelled to share your wisdom to us as well. It does affect many people who were both my neighbours and friends and parents of children who went to Goodrich with our kids.

And they are livid because as people who live in the area and have had to live with the LTN displacement along Underhill and surrounding streets they are incredulous Southwark are doing this as it makes zero sense and will deliver traffic hell for St Dunstan's and St Aidan's and are smart enough to see through the council nonsense.

Edited Tuesday at 22:25 by Rockets

[Angelina]

.

Edited Tuesday at 22:27 by Angelina

[alice]

Can we have a break from M and R  please?

[Earl Aelfheah]

19 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

Nonsense, the Underhill Road congestion occurs during the natural rush hours (in the evening 17.00 to 18.00)

So how are the timed restrictions in the village (which are between 3.00 and 4.30) causing congestion on Underhill Road between 17.00 and 18.00? What's the route that people are using Underhill for, that they'd otherwise use the village for if it wasn't for a 90 minute restriction period that ends at 4.30? This makes no sense.

Edited yesterday at 11:47 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

@Earl Aelfheah it's not that difficult to work out. Since the closure of Calton one of the main East/West routes across Dulwich has been removed which has forced more traffic along routes that have not been closed. This has, in turn, created congestion hotspots at key junctions like the Grove Tavern (in addition the extension of the bus lane to closer to Melford Road created a massive choke point). So traffic is trying to find way/Waze around it and has been funnelling along Underhill Road to basically cut out Grove Tavern.

This is why the council refused to monitor traffic numbers along Underhill as it would show a big increase in traffic numbers post LTNs and would have ruined their claims that traffic numbers were down across the area.      

[first mate]

I do not understand the denials by some in this case. Cllr McAsh has been very clear, one of the tactics to try to stop people using cars is to make car journeys more difficult. 

[ianr]

7 hours ago, Rockets said:

This is why the council refused to monitor traffic numbers along Underhill as it would show a big increase in traffic numbers post LTNs and would have ruined their claims that traffic numbers were down across the area.      

Who made the request and when?

[Rockets]

@ianr maybe the better question you should be asking is why the council did no monitoring of Underhill despite it being a clear displacement route. They monitored the majority of others. Lots of people asked around the time of the LTNs why nothing on Underhill and if I remember rightly Maggie Browning said there were plans to but they never materialised.

It was so clear to everyone who lived around there what was happening.

[Northern Star]

Page 36 shows impact of traffic flow on Underhill (increase 6% to Sep 21). Southwark didn’t initially measure traffic here but did do so  in the last two traffic measurement exercises in the area following feedback from residents. 

It was busy before LTN too - traffic count is on page 36 as well. I would have to disagree with Malumbu regarding Underhill not being busy. The report further states that traffic overall across Southwark had reduced compared to pre Covid levels (for example by 12% comparing march 2019 with march 2021 so an increase in Underhill is contrary to this).

https://services.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/77423/Main-monitoring-report_Dulwich-Streetspace_Sept-2021.pdf
 

I think the problem is not helped by Sat nav’s routing traffic down Underhill to avoid the traffic lights by the junction Lordship Lane/ south circular (and they do route traffic down Ryedale too)

Here is another report with some references to traffic at Underhill pre Covid (page 8

https://services.southwark.gov./assets/attach/10604/What-You-Told-Us.pdf 

And this one states further monitoring will be carried out (not sure if it ever was) - see last page

https://services.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/77420/Infographic-report_Dulwich-Streetspace_Sept-2021.pdf

 

 

Edited 17 hours ago by Northern Star
Page number corrected

[Earl Aelfheah]

21 hours ago, Rockets said:

@Earl Aelfheah it's not that difficult to work out. Since the closure of Calton one of the main East/West routes across Dulwich has been removed

Eh? There hasn't been a closure of a 'main East/West route'. You just can't cut up Calton Avenue, but to drive around it is a 2 - 3 minute diversion. How does someone travelling from the junction of Dulwich Village and Calton Avenue, end up diverting to underhill road as a result of the filter? Explain the route that you think the Calton Avenue filter is leading new people to underhill from.

Edited 4 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[alice]

You’re a smart person. So I’m wondering why you havedeliberately misunderstood the previous poster?

[Rockets]

4 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

How does someone travelling from the junction of Dulwich Village and Calton Avenue, end up diverting to underhill road as a result of the filter? Explain the route that you think the Calton Avenue filter is leading new people to underhill from.

Errrrr @Earl Aelfheah the answer to your question is in the part of my post you selectively edited out. Are we to presume you didn't bother reading the whole of my sentence or just ignored it as it doesn't suit your narrative?

I re-post it below so you can take time to digest it.

23 hours ago, Rockets said:

@Earl Aelfheah it's not that difficult to work out. Since the closure of Calton one of the main East/West routes across Dulwich has been removed which has forced more traffic along routes that have not been closed. This has, in turn, created congestion hotspots at key junctions like the Grove Tavern (in addition the extension of the bus lane to closer to Melford Road created a massive choke point). So traffic is trying to find way/Waze around it and has been funnelling along Underhill Road to basically cut out Grove Tavern.

 

[march46]

It would be helpful to see the route you have in your mind drawn on Google maps, I’m also struggling to see how Underhill becomes an alternative.

[Rockets]

15 hours ago, Northern Star said:

Page 36 shows impact of traffic flow on Underhill (increase 6% to Sep 21). Southwark didn’t initially measure traffic here but did do so  in the last two traffic measurement exercises in the area following feedback from residents. 

And they didn't include Underhill in the area wide monitoring dashboard.

When you look at the infographic you linked to you can see what is actually happening by looking at the bus diagrams for bus journey times and you can see how the council gerrymandered the traffic results. Clearly bus journey times were being impacted on boundary roads, many of which they were not monitoring.

Their dashboard that "proved" the measures were a "success" were monitoring a very specific group of "internal and external roads" that bore no relation to the diversion routes likely taken around the measures and their residual fallout.

When you are celebrating the 80% decline in traffic on Calton and 71% reduction on Court Lane (which had been closed to through traffic) yet monitoring only select parts of Lordship Lane and nothing on Underhill, East Dulwich Road or any number of the routes around the congestion it is clear what the motives are.

 

8 minutes ago, march46 said:

It would be helpful to see the route you have in your mind drawn on Google maps, I’m also struggling to see how Underhill becomes an alternative.

Come on @march46 it is not that difficult to understand. Let's look at one example: if you are trying to get to the A205 from Goose Green roundabout and want to avoid the congestion at the Grove Tavern junction which way do you think you are going to go?

[malumbu]

@Northern Star thanks for your post.  Just a couple of points.

I consider busy/congested is a subjective thing.  Underhill is a main road and therefore will have significant traffic on it.  I've used it regularly over the years, and never considered it particularly congested.  It felt like it picked up some additional traffic during the Grove Tavern roadworks, but I do not see that now.  Compared to roads such as the A23 going through Brixton and Streatham it is free flowing.

If some vehicles are being directed down this way, and I still cannot see why, what new drivers will find is pinch points, particularly at the Barry Road junction, and slow sections where there is not space for two vehicles to pass or the P13 is running.  

The link to the 2019 brochure is interesting, looking back.  Much of this appeared subjective, and the thing that really got me was those worried about speeding cars.  Speeding has nothing to do with road management - unless fairly severe traffic calming is put in place, but is due to irresponsible driving.  Something most of us have been guilty of at sometime during our lives.  

[Angelina]

Oh, jolly good then. That's all alright.

The neighbouring roads are making a fuss about nothing, traffic should be expected, the only cure is fewer selfish people driving.

Let's move on to something we should all be indignant and upset about - but just remember - if it affects you personally and not anyone else, no one will actually care.

 

Nice work people.