Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

Not a Vet said:
You sound like a member of the let’s keep Brixton shit campaign. I don’t really want this new development as I have concerns about the height of it, whether the local infrastructure can cope with it or how much social housing will be available but I’d rather have more housing for local people than a waste site particularly if it remains a low traffic neighbourhood
Click to expand...
I'd like to see social housing for local people too, but his isn't it. It's an 11 storey block of luxury flats in a gated development. The social housing element is the absolute bare minimum required to get it past planning regulations and we'll see how much of that survives the building/marketing/pleading/weaseling stages to come.

What i really don't get is the how obsessed some of the local activists are on getting rid of a recycling plant.
There's a Network Rail facility next to it, a large business/light industrial park behind it and a few hundred yards up the road there's a council office and large bin lorry park next door to a school.
Why the recycling plant?
Maybe the local LTAG/XR people have found an ancient treasure map with a big X on it.
 
I guess because the skip lorries seem to have been a problem for the Shakespeare north residents, if that's not the case then it can stay.
 
sleaterkinney said:
I guess because the skip lorries seem to have been a problem for the Shakespeare north residents, if that's not the case then it can stay.
Click to expand...
The recycling plant has been here longer than I have (15+ years).
We were used to the traffic it generated and no one really bothered to much about it. Then Lambeth blocked off the road and turned it into a very long cul-de-sac.
On one hand we've got less cars on the road as you would expect. It was an important through road that eased the congestion on the lower half of Coldharbour Lane, the Shakespeare north traffic is now forced back on Coldharbour.
On the other hand we now have all the recycling plant traffic coming up and down Shakespeare north and a lot of it at speed as they try to make up the time they've lost coming/going from south of the LTN.

Of course the blessed residents of the new village don't deal with any of this as they don't take their share of the traffic or pollution. Wouldn't want their rural fantasy shattered by anything as urban as a lorry going past.
 
Can we get away from the "rural fantasy" nonsense please? Almost all rural areas are entirely dominated by cars and motor traffic.

This was a constant theme in the One Lambeth group. "Why don't they just move to the country if they don't like traffic".

"Urban" is another word for city and the word for city is related to the word "citizen". It's people who are citizens, not cars. Cities are supposed to be for people.
 
Brian Taylor said:
The recycling plant has been here longer than I have (15+ years).
We were used to the traffic it generated and no one really bothered to much about it. Then Lambeth blocked off the road and turned it into a very long cul-de-sac.
On one hand we've got less cars on the road as you would expect. It was an important through road that eased the congestion on the lower half of Coldharbour Lane, the Shakespeare north traffic is now forced back on Coldharbour.
On the other hand we now have all the recycling plant traffic coming up and down Shakespeare north and a lot of it at speed as they try to make up the time they've lost coming/going from south of the LTN.

Of course the blessed residents of the new village don't deal with any of this as they don't take their share of the traffic or pollution. Wouldn't want their rural fantasy shattered by anything as urban as a lorry going past.
Click to expand...
I’d be very surprised if they were speeding given the number of serious speed bumps on that road, it’s impossible to go fast.

Why would that traffic use Coldharbour rd, surely Milkwood would make more sense? . I have not seen any congestion at Loughborough junction, the congestion on coldharbour is down Brixton way and is more likely to be due to Atlantic and Gresham roads being shut.
 
sleaterkinney said:
I’d be very surprised if they were speeding given the number of serious speed bumps on that road, it’s impossible to go fast.

Why would that traffic use Coldharbour rd, surely Milkwood would make more sense? . I have not seen any congestion at Loughborough junction, the congestion on coldharbour is down Brixton way and is more likely to be due to Atlantic and Gresham roads being shut.
Click to expand...
All the HGV traffic going in and out of the recycling plant is now forced to use Shakespeare north and it's bouncing over those speed bumps as fast as it can. Those HGVs that would have traveled south now head for the Milkwood area and whatever route the diversions around there allow.
Shakespeare north was an important through road that took part of the load off normal southbound traffic on Coldharbour Lane (not the traffic coming in and out of the recycling plant) and that's now a part of the congestion down Brixton way.
Hope that clarifies what i said earlier.

I don't blame the HGV drivers for their increased speeds, from what i understand they're on fixed time delivery contracts and are just trying to make a living and not get penalised by their employers.
 
Brian Taylor said:
All the HGV traffic going in and out of the recycling plant is now forced to use Shakespeare north and it's bouncing over those speed bumps as fast as it can. Those HGVs that would have traveled south now head for the Milkwood area and whatever route the diversions around there allow.
Shakespeare north was an important through road that took part of the load off normal southbound traffic on Coldharbour Lane (not the traffic coming in and out of the recycling plant) and that's now a part of the congestion down Brixton way.
Hope that clarifies what i said earlier.

I don't blame the HGV drivers for their increased speeds, from what i understand they're on fixed time delivery contracts and are just trying to make a living and not get penalised by their employers.
Click to expand...
Not really, it doesn't follow that traffic that used to go down Shakespeare would now go down Coldharbour instead when Milkwood is pretty much parallel to Shakespeare, just the other side of the tracks.

I'd be very surprised if recycling lorries are on fixed time delivery contracts, can you back that up?
 
sleaterkinney said:
I'd be very surprised if recycling lorries are on fixed time delivery contracts, can you back that up?
Click to expand...

I'll put my money on "someone on the whatsapp group said so".

If it's true that skip lorries are consistently speeding and driving dangerously, then perhaps folk need to raise the issue with the operator of the site, Norris

Contact

We’re here to help with your inquiry - just get in touch.
norriskips.co.uk norriskips.co.uk
 
sleaterkinney said:
Not really, it doesn't follow that traffic that used to go down Shakespeare would now go down Coldharbour instead when Milkwood is pretty much parallel to Shakespeare, just the other side of the tracks.

I'd be very surprised if recycling lorries are on fixed time delivery contracts, can you back that up?
Click to expand...
You may well be correct
Some of them might now go down Milkwood.
Some may carry on down Coldharbour.
Some may come all the way down to the end of the cul-de-sac and then turn and go back down Coldharbour.
Some may come all the way down to the end of the cul-de-sac and then turn and go down Milkwood.
They all go somewhere other than the LTN, apart from the ones that simply evaporate.
The ones that haven't vanished in a puff of smoke all add to the general congestion somewhere else.

And teuchter wins his bet on the "someone on the whatsapp group said so"!!! That's the "from what i understand" bit.
Someone asked Norris about it and got told that they have instructed their own drivers to be more careful, but that they have no control of all the other independents who come and go from the plant.
Obviously that is not verbatim as it wasn't me who asked and even if it had been I don't have it in writing or a verified recording of the conversation.
 
Your observation is that lorries heading to and from the Norris site have increased by a number that is greater than the number of lorries that used to, but no longer use Shakespeare Rd as an 'important through road". Is that right? Is it based on a count or just a general impression?
 
teuchter said:
Your observation is that lorries heading to and from the Norris site have increased by a number that is greater than the number of lorries that used to, but no longer use Shakespeare Rd as an 'important through road". Is that right? Is it based on a count or just a general impression?
Click to expand...

2 separate discussions.

1. Norris HGV traffic. All the stuff about speed bumps, Independent/Norris drivers etc.
2. General traffic/"important through road". Where the coldharbour lane traffic that used to use SRN as an important through road now goes.

Since all the Norris traffic is now forced to use SRN instead of some coming and going from the south then the SRN portion must be more than if it was before when it was split. The general impression agrees.
 
Brian Taylor said:
2 separate discussions.

1. Norris HGV traffic. All the stuff about speed bumps, Independent/Norris drivers etc.
2. General traffic/"important through road". Where the coldharbour lane traffic that used to use SRN as an important through road now goes.

Since all the Norris traffic is now forced to use SRN instead of some coming and going from the south then the SRN portion must be more than if it was before when it was split. The general impression agrees.
Click to expand...
Right, but the through traffic must have involved non-Norris related HGVs, which now no longer use the road.

So you have gained a few Norris HGV trips and you have lost a few general HGV through trips. The question is whether they balance each other out. And whether there's any evidence of an overall increase.
 
teuchter said:
Right, but the through traffic must have involved non-Norris related HGVs, which now no longer use the road.

So you have gained a few Norris HGV trips and you have lost a few general HGV through trips. The question is whether they balance each other out. And whether there's any evidence of an overall increase.
Click to expand...
Of course. There is much less through traffic since the road was blocked, it can't actually get through and has to turn and go back. A general impression is that the increase in Norris related HGV outweighs the decrease in HGV through traffic.
It's only an impression since without actual data there isn't any actual evidence only what the residents can see and hear.

I've looked round Lambeths website and they do have an Open Data policy but there's no sign of any traffic data on the Open Data portal.

Anyone know how Lambeth get their traffic data, do they collect it themselves or use data from another source?
 
Not a Vet said:
Also 6 months trial starts from then too so mark the date June 18th is when decisions start to be taken/consulted
Click to expand...
I admire your optimism on this.

Lambeth used a TTO (Temporary Traffic Order) to avoid consultation and shove this through last July.
Now they've switched to a new ETO (Experimental) which gives them another 6 months.

Their determination to avoid consultations might have something to do with a TfL survey buried away in their Sept 2020 report, page 215 of the pdf. http://content.tfl.gov.uk/travel-in-london-report-13.pdf
19% in support of people affected by the LTN but living outside it. 56% support inside the LTN. Not great results for Lambeth.

above corrected after getting it wrong
 
Last edited:
Brian Taylor said:
I admire your optimism on this.

Lambeth used a TTO (Temporary Traffic Order) to avoid consultation and shove this through last July, that had a 6 month clause obligating them to consult or cancel.
That 6 month period is up and to avoid their obligations they've switched to a new ETO (Experimental) which gives them another 6 months.

Their determination to avoid consultations might have something to do with a TfL survey buried away in their Sept 2020 report, page 215 of the pdf. http://content.tfl.gov.uk/travel-in-london-report-13.pdf
7% in support of people affected by the LTN but living outside it. 56% support inside the LTN. Not great results for Lambeth.
Click to expand...
My understanding is temporary orders can last up to 18 months without consultation, no six month limit. Experimental orders have an inbuilt 6 month objection period & a decision can be taken any time after that six months up until 18 month limit
 
Brian Taylor said:
I admire your optimism on this.

Lambeth used a TTO (Temporary Traffic Order) to avoid consultation and shove this through last July, that had a 6 month clause obligating them to consult or cancel.
That 6 month period is up and to avoid their obligations they've switched to a new ETO (Experimental) which gives them another 6 months.

Their determination to avoid consultations might have something to do with a TfL survey buried away in their Sept 2020 report, page 215 of the pdf. http://content.tfl.gov.uk/travel-in-london-report-13.pdf
7% in support of people affected by the LTN but living outside it. 56% support inside the LTN. Not great results for Lambeth.
Click to expand...
Apologies for the typo... 7% should be 19%. Posting 1st thing(ish) on a Sunday morning isn't a great idea.
 
There was a recent letter from Claire Holland saying that fines will now be implemented for infringing the LTNs.

I wonder what that means for emergency services and utilities as they’ve been using the Railton Road one for a while.
 
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
810
editor
editor
editor
It's a grim Christmas around Brixton: no lights, no tree and no funfair
Replies
1
Views
749
skyscraper101
skyscraper101
editor
Coronation (and anti Coronation events this weekend in and around Brixton
Replies
5
Views
814
Gramsci
Gramsci
editor
Homophobia in Brixton
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
Tulster218
T
Back
Top Bottom