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

[Earl Aelfheah]

11 minutes ago, Ladharrbeinn said:

I'm confused - of Underhill and Ryedale, which is the A road and which is the B road? 

They're both B roads. Ryedale is the smaller, narrower street, and that's why there is a proposal to keep drivers on Underhill and discourage people from using Ryedale to bypass the lights - which impacts traffic flow on Forest Hill Road. I agree that there should be some action to reduce traffic on Underhill generally.

1 hour ago, Ladharrbeinn said:

residents of Court Lane have been handed a massive bonus by the closure of "Dulwich Square", entirely at the expense of those on East Dulwich Grove

East Dulwich Grove is an A road.

Edited 6 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[alice]

Neither of them ( underhill and rydale) are A or B Roads as I mentioned in my post above

Edited 6 hours ago by alice

[Moondoox]

@Ladharrbeinn as someone who lives on a road made busier by traffic interventions, I say thank god there are places like Court Lane where I can cycle safely. Dulwich Square is invaluable as a means to cycle to the big Sainsbury's and access routes towards Herne Hill and Brixton, for instance.

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

But clearly, despite all of the interventions to date, people are not getting out of their cars are they? Do you realise that many of these interventions are causing more rat-running?

One presumes you supported the council's measures - what would you say to those who live on St Dunstan's who may be impacted by the closure?

causing more rat running or just rerouting the rats?

If bus services aren't going to significantly improve, I don't see any other means to reduce car usage than cycling, and nobody except lunatics like me will ever cycle until it's safe to do so. That means segregated infrastructure on major roads, and/or road closures on residential streets.

Edited 6 hours ago by Moondoox
last reply removed due to misreading the comment I replied to

[Earl Aelfheah]

Also, it's not true that people aren't getting out of their cars. There is plenty of evidence that they are. And there are a lot more people cycling.

Edited 5 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

15 minutes ago, Moondoox said:

@Ladharrbeinn as someone who lives on a road made busier by traffic interventions, I say thank god there are places like Court Lane where I can cycle safely.

So interesting you think the interventions have made your road busier yet are supportive of more interventions to manage the displacement caused by the original interventions which will create more displacement?

10 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Also, it's not true that people aren't getting out of their cars. There is plenty of evidence that they are.

So if they are why is congestion getting worse....you know the answer...;-)

[Earl Aelfheah]

2 minutes ago, Rockets said:

14 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Also, it's not true that people aren't getting out of their cars. There is plenty of evidence that they are.

So if they are why is congestion getting worse....you know the answer...;-)

So are you agreeing that your claim that people aren't getting out of their cars is untrue? Would be good to establish that first. Then if we're agreed on the premise, I am happy to answer your question.

[Rockets]

Ha ha @Earl Aelfheah you're trying to take us down an Earl rat run aren't you...;-)

[Moondoox]

12 minutes ago, Rockets said:

So interesting you think the interventions have made your road busier yet are supportive of more interventions to manage the displacement caused by the original interventions which will create more displacement?

yes, because the interventions make it easier and safer to cycle. I was hoping for a closure on Underhill Road but this is a start, and I'm keen to see if it's any good or not. as far as I'm concerned, the road being quieter and less polluted is secondary.

traffic management will always be a zero sum game until there's less traffic, and interventions provide both a means to cycle and a reason not to drive. my main qualm with this one is that it doesn't connect to much.

[Rockets]

11 minutes ago, Moondoox said:

yes, because the interventions make it easier and safer to cycle.

But, on the basis of what you said, they also increase congestion and pollution for other residents don't they? Are you not robbing Peter to pay Paul? How do you feel for the residents of St Dunstan's who may cycle but now are going to have more congestion and pollution so you can have a quiet road or a cycleway that doesn't lead anywhere in particular? Doesn't that seem a little ludicrous?

I feel for you because you had more traffic thrust upon you by the council rolling out the LTNs but I am sure  when you and your neighbours went to the council about it all they said was "do you want your road closed". These are the real nudge tactics the council employs and it is shameful and disgraceful.

15 minutes ago, Moondoox said:

traffic management will always be a zero sum game until there's less traffic, and interventions provide both a means to cycle and a reason not to drive.

But do you really believe that these interventions are encouraging people not to drive? All they have done over the last few years is diverted traffic to roads like yours (which you have acknowledged). Underhill, Ryedale, Goodrich, St Dunstan are examples of the many victims of the Dulwich LTNs and you think the answer is to put in more interventions? It's a bit like TFL who have put in interventions which have created more congestion (and undoubtedly more pollution) which is causing problems for buses and their answer is...well we need more interventions. At what point do we actually see any of these interventions having the desired effect because your own experience suggests they are not working but just pushing more traffic down fewer roads?

I am afraid, as a cyclist, I do not see cycling as being the wonderful magic bullet many (and seemingly TFL) think it is to the traffic issues. There are far more things hindering cycle growth than just safe cycle routes - this nonsense that London can one-day be an Amsterdam is pie in the sky stuff.

[Moondoox]

13 minutes ago, Rockets said:

All they have done over the last few years is diverted traffic to roads like yours

They've also created lots of useful cycle routes that I travel on frequently, with Dulwich Village being a good example.

 

14 minutes ago, Rockets said:

There are far more things hindering cycle growth than just safe cycle routes

I'm interested to hear what you think these are. Wher London gets cycle infra right, it's a joy to use. Amsterdam used to be extremely congested as well. What's to be done about congestion, in your opinion?

[Rockets]

@Moondoox you seem to be avoiding the displacement issue somewhat which clearly is the issue which has caused this problem on your road.

16 minutes ago, Moondoox said:

What's to be done about congestion, in your opinion?

Well, a good start would be not to put things in place that don't make it any better - or be honest about the impact the interventions are having rather than trying to bury the reality.

Congestion in London is not going to be solved by cycling, in fact, there is growing evidence it is getting worse on the basis of the provision of cycle infrastructure. And I speak as a cyclist who was able to cycle across London every day without the need for dedicated cycle infrastructure!

London is not Amsterdam - they are the polar opposites in terms of cities in size, scale, topology and historical development.

[Ladharrbeinn]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

They're both B roads. Ryedale is the smaller, narrower street, and that's why there is a proposal to keep drivers on Underhill and discourage people from using Ryedale to bypass the lights - which impacts traffic flow on Forest Hill Road. I agree that there should be some action to reduce traffic on Underhill generally.

East Dulwich Grove is an A road.

OK so this is a good example of the nonsense logic of the Dulwich LTNs. East Dulwich Grove is an "A road" so fine, according to the LTN supporters, to route more traffic down it. But East Dulwich Grove is 7.6m wide at its eastern end, and the front doors of the houses are about 4.5m from the carriageway. On Court Lane, the "B road" where the multi-million pound houses have benefitted from the road closure, the road is about 9m wide and, due to there large front gardens, the front doors of the houses are at least 13m from the carriageway, many of them double that. 

East Dulwich Grove is also home to a health centre and large secondary school. But because the smaller road was designated with an A decades ago, that is where all the traffic should go?? It makes no sense. The unfortunate fact is that the wealthier, more vocal, more politically active residents are better organised and so pushing the scourge of traffic onto their less vociferous neighbours.   

[Spartacus]

36 minutes ago, Moondoox said:

They've also created lots of useful cycle routes that I travel on frequently, with Dulwich Village being a good example.

 

I'm interested to hear what you think these are. Wher London gets cycle infra right, it's a joy to use. Amsterdam used to be extremely congested as well. What's to be done about congestion, in your opinion?

Loving your comments, as they totally take into account those that can't cycle and may need to drive.

The disabled and elderly to name a few. 🫣

But its fine as long as some able bodied can cycle! 

[Moondoox]

@Rockets If the traffic on Underhill is caused by other interventions (which tbf I only know from this thread, so for now I'll assume it's the case), then frankly it's been worth it for me as the routes they open up are invaluable. I just don't think they go far enough. personally I'm not satisfied with the solution at the end of the day being no infrastructure at all. I'm glad that you were able to cycle before it was safe, but it sounded horrible and was a much less realistic option for most back then.

I'm still curious as to how you think congestion is going to be reduced in London.

 

@Spartacus this is a tiresome argument that comes up every time cycling is discussed anywhere, but I'll bite. You can still drive! If you need to get to Ryedale, or Court Lane, or any LTN, you just go the long way around. I don't understand why people act as if road closures make places completely inaccessible by car.

Lots of people use the elderly and disabled as a cudgel against the mere notion that maybe too many people are driving. Need I mention all the disabled people who can't drive? And those among them who can and do cycle?

@Ladharrbeinn court lane is a good cycle connection to Dulwich Park, Brockwell Park via Turney Road (and therefore Brixton, Oval etc), Champion Hill (and therefore Ruskin Park and Loughborough Junction). One closure makes for incredibly useful cycle infrastructure

Edited 3 hours ago by Moondoox

[Rockets]

12 minutes ago, Moondoox said:

I'm still curious as to how you think congestion is going to be reduced in London.

Congestion should be reducing as vehicular traffic has been declining in London for years and years.

21 minutes ago, Moondoox said:

If the traffic on Underhill is caused by other interventions (which tbf I only know from this thread, so for now I'll assume it's the case), then frankly it's been worth it for me as the routes they open up are invaluable. I just don't think they go far enough.

But at the same time you say you live on a road made busier by the interventions (Ryedale) and that road is the one where residents have had to lobby to get it turned into an LTN due to the increase in traffic, and no doubt pollution. But you still think that is a price worth paying (maybe I should ask your neighbours on Dunstan's if they feel the same way! ;-))

13 minutes ago, Moondoox said:

I'm glad that you were able to cycle before it was safe, but it sounded horrible and was a much less realistic option for most back then.

The notion that cycling was not safe before infrastructure is utter nonsense - I used to take routes that used plenty of back streets to wind my way to West London and it was wonderfully pleasant - granted keep your wits about you around the Battersea Park roundabout and the mini-roundabout hell on North End Road and it was a breeze. The only horrible thing was losing a pedal in a torrential downpour miles from home one night!

[Moondoox]

17 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Congestion should be reducing as vehicular traffic has been declining in London for years and years.

do you know what's driving that? Are you suggesting that if we wait long enough the roads will just become safe?

 

22 minutes ago, Rockets said:

The notion that cycling was not safe before infrastructure is utter nonsense

I certainly wouldn't take a young child on my route to work without the infrastructure in place now, and even then it's still a bit dicey in parts. I experience awful driver behaviour all the time. The fact that cycling is still considered an abnormal and dangerous way to get around is evidence of the fact that it's still not safe enough in a lot of places

[Northern Star]

Regarding classification of roads: 

https://www.findmystreet.co.uk/map

Ryedale is unclassified and so is Underhill - so local roads 😉
Barry Road is a B, Court Lane C , DV is C and EDG A. I don’t think EDG is built to be an A road though. Calton is unclassified. Townley is C
(And further afield, Honor Oak Road is a C road).
 

classification of a C road: 

These are generally smaller roads intended to connect together unclassified roads with A and B roads, and often linking a housing estate or a village to the rest of the network. C-roads performs a more important function than an unclassified road.

based on the above, wouldn’t it be fair to have a bus gate on Underhill, given that bus gates have been installed on C roads in the area? That would also help with reducing the traffic on Ryedale and surrounding roads? Especially around rush hour. (Wouldn’t help on weekends though).

[alice]

Are there any bus gates on unclassified roads (such as Underhill)  in the area?

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Moondoox said:

I certainly wouldn't take a young child on my route to work without the infrastructure in place now, and even then it's still a bit dicey in parts. I experience awful driver behaviour all the time. The fact that cycling is still considered an abnormal and dangerous way to get around is evidence of the fact that it's still not safe enough in a lot of places

Have you been cycling or cycling for commuting for long? It's interesting - I do think there is a generation of cyclists who have been conditioned to believe that cycling is dangerous and that the only way to make it safe is to have dedicated infrastructure. I can honestly say I can think of two instances where I nearly came a cropper due to bad driving and I was doing a lot of miles. 

I actually think the cycling lobby, by the way they have pitted bike vs car, have created a perceptual fear that is far worse than reality. And, rather conversely, have created a generation of cyclists who think the rules of the road do not apply to them.

1 hour ago, Moondoox said:

do you know what's driving that? Are you suggesting that if we wait long enough the roads will just become safe?

No that is not what I am saying, what I am pointing out is that the numbers of vehicles and traffic flows have been declining for years (long before the first LTN) yet congestion is getting worse and worse and is as bad as it has ever been.  With that congestion comes increased pollution and I think TFL loses sight that the No.1 objective of active travel is to cut pollution yet many of their interventions (which seemed to be wholly focused on placating the cycle lobby) are actually increasing pollution.

The London Assembly meeting was fascinating in that regard when the chair had to remind the TFL spokespeople that they cannot answer every question about congestion with an excuse based on affirmative action for active travel.