Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists

Jesterburger said:
If only there was some way of avoiding the fines
Click to expand...
It does seem strange to me that many objections to the LTN's I read are about how they are just a money making exercise for Lambeth. Surely if you don't want Lambeth to take your money in a fine, then just comply with the new changes and don't drive through a no entry sign. Or alternatively, look at it as a good way for Lambeth to try and claw back some money during a financially difficult time.
 
sparkybird said:
about how they are just a money making exercise
Click to expand...

Same response comes for red light/bus lane/speeding cameras. Amazing how many motorists admit to either being habitual lawbreakers or so inattentive they never see signs (or that despite supposedly being trained, skilled, licensed drivers that they don't know what a no-motor-vehicles sign means or are unable to control the speed of their vehicle).

The DVLA address for you to return your licence is on their website.
 
Meanwhile the Daily Mail and Daily Express report on a group of "Tory backbenchers" delivering a letter calling for the LTNs and other measures to be scrapped

(I'll link instead to a report here)

This is organised by Fair Fuel UK.

A look at their website tells you how much interest they have in reducing pollution and congestion or increasing road safety.

They don't want anything that tries to reduce traffic. Instead they seem to believe in some kind of magic potion that can be added to petrol and diesel to lower emissions and increase efficiency:

Emissions-Solutions

We are a public affairs team with no shareholders to satisfy, just an award winning campaign representing the real concerns of hard working motorists, families, small businesses, commercial drivers and hauliers across the UK. Decades of fiscal exploitation by successive Governments with little...
www.fairfueluk.com www.fairfueluk.com

(As far as I can make out this is basically complete nonsense - no such additives, with any evidence of efficacy, exist)
 
Fair Fuel is a bloke from chiselhurst who likes driving his car. I think he got involved in the Loughborough anti group.

It’s the same people as the association of British drivers -climate change denialisms and ‘war on motorists’ guff.
 
Last edited:
Three new LTNs proposed for Southwark with backing from Guys and St Thomas charity.

southwarkcyclists.org.uk

3 New Low Traffic Neighbourhoods

At last week's Environment Scrutiny Commission 3 new low traffic neighbourhoods were announced with £250,000 of support from Guys and St Thomas Charity. Each LTN is centred around schools with goals of enabling students to walk and cycle more. The projects are in Brunswick Park, Ark Walworth and...
southwarkcyclists.org.uk southwarkcyclists.org.uk
 
The dark side of LTNs. Millionaire property developers wanting road closures to increase the desirability and profitability of their empires

 
Coldharbour Lane unlikely ever to be within an LTN - however, those of us who have faith in the longer term effects of a progressive, city-wide adoption of LTNs alongside a gradual re-allocation of space on London's "main" roads, would hope that we will in time reach a point where traffic levels on Coldharbour Lane become lower than they are today.

That's only if these policies aren't scuppered though. If the anti brigade get their way, then we can all look forward to traffic on Coldharbour Lane getting worse and worse.
 
I don't live near this area, but I just received this in an email from Lambeth.

Don't get fined for driving into or out of the Streatham Hill low traffic neighbourhood.

Since the LTN was introduced in August, we have been monitoring the road closures and listening to your feedback. At first, we did not issue fines to people who passed through the closures as we know that it takes everyone some time to get used to new road changes.
Streatham LTN no motor sign

Now that the 'no motor vehicle' signs and planters have been in place for over 2 months, we are now enforcing fines of £130 against people who drive through the closures. Most drivers are following the rules; however, our monitoring shows some people are still acting illegally and driving through.

Make sure you don’t get fined for passing the 'no motor vehicle' signs which are on Amesbury Avenue, at the junctions with Faygate Road and Emsworth Street, at the junction of Hillside Road with Downton Road, and on Palace Road, close to the junction with Daysbrook Road. See below for a map of the locations which non-emergency motor vehicles cannot pass through.

Emergency vehicles and people walking and cycling are still able to pass through from either direction, and any street can still be accessed by car from one end by residents or visitors.

Thank you,

Lambeth Parking and Enforcement Service
Click to expand...

This is the attached map.

streatham-hill-ltn-map_original.png
 
sparkybird said:
www.theguardian.com

Local councils advised to push ahead with traffic reduction schemes

UK government says plans helping people to walk and cycle should not be derailed by minority of noisy dissidents
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

Second lot of funding from Gov to implement more LTNs. Calls for better consultation this time round. I really hope this is the start of something big and the next step is to address the areas in between.
Click to expand...

Sensible stuff:

  • consult better but don’t just listen to loudest voices
  • let changes bed in for 6-12 months before reaching conclusions
 
I remain surprised they are pushing ahead with this, because (although it's all in their manifesto) I'd have thought it's the sort of thing that really wouldn't be popular with conservative voters. At least at a local level with councils, the tory led Wandsworth have dumped their schemes and the lone tory Lambeth councillor is very vocal in his opposition.

But have they done their research and found that these things really are more popular than it might appear - even amongst conservative voters?
 
Winot said:
Sensible stuff:

  • consult better but don’t just listen to loudest voices
  • let changes bed in for 6-12 months before reaching conclusions
Click to expand...

Interesting that you think "prior consultation and proper engagement" required by Shapps is sensible. Anyone who has suggested it on here has been treated quite obnoxiously and had their motives doubted. Gramsci

Important that "not just listening to the loudest voices" is not confused with "not listening to the loudest voices". Some voices have had to be loud and without nuance because they are not given privileged, cosy, across-the-desk and pick-up-the-phone access to people running the schemes like small cyclist groups are.

I am repeatedly disappointed by the behaviour of some of those given such privileged access. It is as ugly as the behaviour of the more extreme One posters gleefully and pathetically reposted on here. Hopefully the time for these divisive, angry individuals is up and they will go the way of Dominic Cummings.
 
I really don't recall any instances on here where Winot has treated anyone suggesting prior consultation and proper engagement "obnoxiously". That seems unfair.

I would share the point of view that progress has been held back for many years by ineffectual "consultation" which results in design-by-committee interventions that are half-hearted and end up being virtually useless.

There's quite clearly different views on what proper consultation and engagement should mean. My impression is that Gramsci for example would like some kind of system where you have a vote among local residents or similar and some neighbourhoods will vote to have an LTN and some won't. I don't agree with that - I believe more in what some people might call top-down policy making, because especially for something like transport in London, you need to have something that is coherent across the whole city. We have right now (which is perhaps a little unprecedented) the combination of a council, a mayor's office, and central government who have all been voted in on manifestos that explicitly include measures to deal with excessive road traffic and encourage changes in transport habits.

For me that's the starting point, and consultation should be about finding the most effective way to achieve these aims which makes the most of local knowledge, and does everything possible to mitigate against the inevitable negative effects that will be seen by some people - accepting that there will be some that can't be entirely avoided without completely negating the aims of the interventions. I don't think I'm the only one here who would broadly take that view of what consultation should be - and I haven't seen anyone trying to say that this is what Lambeth are succeeding in doing. So, I don't see the implied inconsistency in saying that better consultation is "sensible".

I think you're oversimplifying the argument to some kind of thing where some people think "consultation" is unecessary and pointless. No, the disagreement is more about what, exactly, "consultation" should be.

I joined the One Lambeth facebook group to see to what extent it was the case that they were being misrepresented - that in fact it was really just a group of people who want better consultation, greater input from local insight and so on. Well, it's not. I've been reading it for several weeks now - it's overwhelmingly a group of people who simply don't want the LTNs at all, and they don't want the TfL reallocation of road space, at all. There is zero discussion on there of any kind of halfway house or compromise, or modified version of the scheme. These groups are the "loud voices" who are presenting petitions and crowdfunding legal action.

Dismissing groups like One Lambeth doesn't mean dismissing any concerns and problems that people have with the impacts of LTNs or other schemes. Where are the voices of those who genuinely support the broad aims, but want to raise their concerns and make constructive suggestions about modifications to the changes that are being made to London's roads? I think they are being drowned out by the "loudest voices". I only really see them being expressed here, and I think that when they are expressed here they are engaged with for the most part entirely unobnoxiously.
 
teuchter said:
I really don't recall any instances on here where Winot has treated anyone suggesting prior consultation and proper engagement "obnoxiously". That seems unfair.

I would share the point of view that progress has been held back for many years by ineffectual "consultation" which results in design-by-committee interventions that are half-hearted and end up being virtually useless.

There's quite clearly different views on what proper consultation and engagement should mean. My impression is that Gramsci for example would like some kind of system where you have a vote among local residents or similar and some neighbourhoods will vote to have an LTN and some won't. I don't agree with that - I believe more in what some people might call top-down policy making, because especially for something like transport in London, you need to have something that is coherent across the whole city. We have right now (which is perhaps a little unprecedented) the combination of a council, a mayor's office, and central government who have all been voted in on manifestos that explicitly include measures to deal with excessive road traffic and encourage changes in transport habits.

For me that's the starting point, and consultation should be about finding the most effective way to achieve these aims which makes the most of local knowledge, and does everything possible to mitigate against the inevitable negative effects that will be seen by some people - accepting that there will be some that can't be entirely avoided without completely negating the aims of the interventions. I don't think I'm the only one here who would broadly take that view of what consultation should be - and I haven't seen anyone trying to say that this is what Lambeth are succeeding in doing. So, I don't see the implied inconsistency in saying that better consultation is "sensible".

I think you're oversimplifying the argument to some kind of thing where some people think "consultation" is unecessary and pointless. No, the disagreement is more about what, exactly, "consultation" should be.

I joined the One Lambeth facebook group to see to what extent it was the case that they were being misrepresented - that in fact it was really just a group of people who want better consultation, greater input from local insight and so on. Well, it's not. I've been reading it for several weeks now - it's overwhelmingly a group of people who simply don't want the LTNs at all, and they don't want the TfL reallocation of road space, at all. There is zero discussion on there of any kind of halfway house or compromise, or modified version of the scheme. These groups are the "loud voices" who are presenting petitions and crowdfunding legal action.

Dismissing groups like One Lambeth doesn't mean dismissing any concerns and problems that people have with the impacts of LTNs or other schemes. Where are the voices of those who genuinely support the broad aims, but want to raise their concerns and make constructive suggestions about modifications to the changes that are being made to London's roads? I think they are being drowned out by the "loudest voices". I only really see them being expressed here, and I think that when they are expressed here they are engaged with for the most part entirely unobnoxiously.
Click to expand...

Here is what Winot said in post 402 on consultation:

Frankly I am tired of decades of mealy-mouthed inaction and consultations that slow down progress. Fuck it - a revolution is needed.
Click to expand...
 
teuchter said:
I really don't recall any instances on here where Winot has treated anyone suggesting prior consultation and proper engagement "obnoxiously". That seems unfair.

I would share the point of view that progress has been held back for many years by ineffectual "consultation" which results in design-by-committee interventions that are half-hearted and end up being virtually useless.

There's quite clearly different views on what proper consultation and engagement should mean. My impression is that Gramsci for example would like some kind of system where you have a vote among local residents or similar and some neighbourhoods will vote to have an LTN and some won't. I don't agree with that - I believe more in what some people might call top-down policy making, because especially for something like transport in London, you need to have something that is coherent across the whole city. We have right now (which is perhaps a little unprecedented) the combination of a council, a mayor's office, and central government who have all been voted in on manifestos that explicitly include measures to deal with excessive road traffic and encourage changes in transport habits.

For me that's the starting point, and consultation should be about finding the most effective way to achieve these aims which makes the most of local knowledge, and does everything possible to mitigate against the inevitable negative effects that will be seen by some people - accepting that there will be some that can't be entirely avoided without completely negating the aims of the interventions. I don't think I'm the only one here who would broadly take that view of what consultation should be - and I haven't seen anyone trying to say that this is what Lambeth are succeeding in doing. So, I don't see the implied inconsistency in saying that better consultation is "sensible".

I think you're oversimplifying the argument to some kind of thing where some people think "consultation" is unecessary and pointless. No, the disagreement is more about what, exactly, "consultation" should be.

I joined the One Lambeth facebook group to see to what extent it was the case that they were being misrepresented - that in fact it was really just a group of people who want better consultation, greater input from local insight and so on. Well, it's not. I've been reading it for several weeks now - it's overwhelmingly a group of people who simply don't want the LTNs at all, and they don't want the TfL reallocation of road space, at all. There is zero discussion on there of any kind of halfway house or compromise, or modified version of the scheme. These groups are the "loud voices" who are presenting petitions and crowdfunding legal action.

Dismissing groups like One Lambeth doesn't mean dismissing any concerns and problems that people have with the impacts of LTNs or other schemes. Where are the voices of those who genuinely support the broad aims, but want to raise their concerns and make constructive suggestions about modifications to the changes that are being made to London's roads? I think they are being drowned out by the "loudest voices". I only really see them being expressed here, and I think that when they are expressed here they are engaged with for the most part entirely unobnoxiously.
Click to expand...

Actually Im going with what the Council first said about the Liveable Neighbourhood. This is a thread about that subject.

Council at meeting I attended pre Covid said they would not go ahead with a Liveable Neighborhood without a lot of consultation and building up support.

Its not me that putting forward ideas. Im just reminding posters here what the Council were saying at the early stages of the Liveable Neighborhood.
 
teuchter said:
I really don't recall any instances on here where Winot has treated anyone suggesting prior consultation and proper engagement "obnoxiously". That seems unfair.

I would share the point of view that progress has been held back for many years by ineffectual "consultation" which results in design-by-committee interventions that are half-hearted and end up being virtually useless.

There's quite clearly different views on what proper consultation and engagement should mean. My impression is that Gramsci for example would like some kind of system where you have a vote among local residents or similar and some neighbourhoods will vote to have an LTN and some won't. I don't agree with that - I believe more in what some people might call top-down policy making, because especially for something like transport in London, you need to have something that is coherent across the whole city. We have right now (which is perhaps a little unprecedented) the combination of a council, a mayor's office, and central government who have all been voted in on manifestos that explicitly include measures to deal with excessive road traffic and encourage changes in transport habits.

For me that's the starting point, and consultation should be about finding the most effective way to achieve these aims which makes the most of local knowledge, and does everything possible to mitigate against the inevitable negative effects that will be seen by some people - accepting that there will be some that can't be entirely avoided without completely negating the aims of the interventions. I don't think I'm the only one here who would broadly take that view of what consultation should be - and I haven't seen anyone trying to say that this is what Lambeth are succeeding in doing. So, I don't see the implied inconsistency in saying that better consultation is "sensible".

I think you're oversimplifying the argument to some kind of thing where some people think "consultation" is unecessary and pointless. No, the disagreement is more about what, exactly, "consultation" should be.

I joined the One Lambeth facebook group to see to what extent it was the case that they were being misrepresented - that in fact it was really just a group of people who want better consultation, greater input from local insight and so on. Well, it's not. I've been reading it for several weeks now - it's overwhelmingly a group of people who simply don't want the LTNs at all, and they don't want the TfL reallocation of road space, at all. There is zero discussion on there of any kind of halfway house or compromise, or modified version of the scheme. These groups are the "loud voices" who are presenting petitions and crowdfunding legal action.

Dismissing groups like One Lambeth doesn't mean dismissing any concerns and problems that people have with the impacts of LTNs or other schemes. Where are the voices of those who genuinely support the broad aims, but want to raise their concerns and make constructive suggestions about modifications to the changes that are being made to London's roads? I think they are being drowned out by the "loudest voices". I only really see them being expressed here, and I think that when they are expressed here they are engaged with for the most part entirely unobnoxiously.
Click to expand...

This central Government was voted in on election that was about Brexit. I don't think people voted Tory because they wanted LTNs. I didnt see it as issue at last election.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CH1
teuchter said:
I really don't recall any instances on here where Winot has treated anyone suggesting prior consultation and proper engagement "obnoxiously". That seems unfair.

I would share the point of view that progress has been held back for many years by ineffectual "consultation" which results in design-by-committee interventions that are half-hearted and end up being virtually useless.

There's quite clearly different views on what proper consultation and engagement should mean. My impression is that Gramsci for example would like some kind of system where you have a vote among local residents or similar and some neighbourhoods will vote to have an LTN and some won't. I don't agree with that - I believe more in what some people might call top-down policy making, because especially for something like transport in London, you need to have something that is coherent across the whole city. We have right now (which is perhaps a little unprecedented) the combination of a council, a mayor's office, and central government who have all been voted in on manifestos that explicitly include measures to deal with excessive road traffic and encourage changes in transport habits.

For me that's the starting point, and consultation should be about finding the most effective way to achieve these aims which makes the most of local knowledge, and does everything possible to mitigate against the inevitable negative effects that will be seen by some people - accepting that there will be some that can't be entirely avoided without completely negating the aims of the interventions. I don't think I'm the only one here who would broadly take that view of what consultation should be - and I haven't seen anyone trying to say that this is what Lambeth are succeeding in doing. So, I don't see the implied inconsistency in saying that better consultation is "sensible".

I think you're oversimplifying the argument to some kind of thing where some people think "consultation" is unecessary and pointless. No, the disagreement is more about what, exactly, "consultation" should be.

I joined the One Lambeth facebook group to see to what extent it was the case that they were being misrepresented - that in fact it was really just a group of people who want better consultation, greater input from local insight and so on. Well, it's not. I've been reading it for several weeks now - it's overwhelmingly a group of people who simply don't want the LTNs at all, and they don't want the TfL reallocation of road space, at all. There is zero discussion on there of any kind of halfway house or compromise, or modified version of the scheme. These groups are the "loud voices" who are presenting petitions and crowdfunding legal action.

Dismissing groups like One Lambeth doesn't mean dismissing any concerns and problems that people have with the impacts of LTNs or other schemes. Where are the voices of those who genuinely support the broad aims, but want to raise their concerns and make constructive suggestions about modifications to the changes that are being made to London's roads? I think they are being drowned out by the "loudest voices". I only really see them being expressed here, and I think that when they are expressed here they are engaged with for the most part entirely unobnoxiously.
Click to expand...

You might believe in top down policy making. But this is supposed to be a Coop Council..
 
Personally, I don't see how supporting unrestricted access to roads for motorised traffic ( for in practise that is the position of those here who opposed the road closures) is supporting the working class. It's beyond me. 5 years ago in Loughborough Junction the council just caved in completely to the motorist. It was a farce. All suggestions to reduce road traffic were ruled out of the discussion and the tiny changes ended up being motorist first, pedestrians and cyclists second.

A friend of mine lives in Walthamstow Mini Holland and basically stops rat runs.The council pushed it through despite opposition and it's been a big success. It's great to see that Lambeth are now delivering on their manifesto committment to making Lambeth a cycle and pedestrian friendly borough.

I'm with Gramsci on this basically.
 
Here's quite an interesting film from the 1970s when Amsterdam was going through a similar sort of conflict about transport priorities.



It may be a kind of propaganda film in the way it presents the story, but it's perhaps an illustration of the fact that change didn't come easy there either.
 
thebackrow said:
5 years ago in Loughborough Junction the council just caved in completely to the motorist. It was a farce. All suggestions to reduce road traffic were ruled out of the discussion and the tiny changes ended up being motorist first, pedestrians and cyclists second.
Click to expand...

Caved to the community, businesses, pedestrians, cyclists, emergency services and yes, motorists... but not just motorists. I am a resident, (rare) cyclist, motorist and many other boxes.

It sounded great and most were for it (well, those that heard about it). When it was implemented it was a nightmare and we turned up to the council meetings by the hundreds. I think the gent who led that campaign is now working with OneLambeth because hes been mentioned a few times. We can go around the houses all day for it needing time to bed in but it got worse, and worse and worse as the weeks went by.

They said they learned from it for these LTNs yet i'm seeing the same thing to a T.
 
Last edited:
Jeanette Moo said:
Caved to the community, businesses, pedestrians, cyclists, emergency services and yes, motorists... but not just motorists. I am a resident, (rare) cyclist, motorist and many other boxes.

It sounded great and most were for it (well, those that heard about it). When it was implemented it was a nightmare and we turned up to the council meetings by the hundreds. I think the gent who led that campaign is now working with OneLambeth because hes been mentioned a few times. We can go around the houses all day for it needing time to bed in but it got worse, and worse and worse as the weeks went by.

They said they learned from it for these LTNs yet i'm seeing the same thing to a T.
Click to expand...
Possibly what they learnt from LJ was not to cave in too early. I think they weren't braced for the level of vocal opposition. So far it appears they are holding their nerve and may be willing to give things enough time to settle before jumping to conclusions about long term effects. We'll see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

editor
Cyclist killed in Brixton
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
T & P
T & P
blameless77
After work pint in Brixton?
Replies
12
Views
799
editor
editor
editor
It's a grim Christmas around Brixton: no lights, no tree and no funfair
Replies
1
Views
744
skyscraper101
skyscraper101
editor
Coronation (and anti Coronation events this weekend in and around Brixton
Replies
5
Views
803
Gramsci
Gramsci
editor
Homophobia in Brixton
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
Tulster218
T
Back
Top Bottom