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

[teuchter]

Can I not just have a different opinion to you? Those options are not going to work for us so sorry no

Of course you can have a different opinion to me. If you don't want a response to it, don't post it up on the area's most argumentative public discussion boards.

 

[Gramsci]

Because Urban75 members have got old and bought cars.

I don't have a car. I am older. Nor can I afford a car.

You have made your position clear. These measures should be pushed through anyway. Without consultation. Fair enough. That is a viewpoint.

Because I take a critically supportive view does not mean I own a car or just got older.

My experience of Lambeth is that Im concerned how this particular New Labour Council consults and deals with its residents.

I am older so I have more experience of dealing with Council on planning issues- consultations on future of Brixton and LJ.

This experience has led to me seeing that Lambeth Council don't reallly consult people.

On a range of issues ( The Rec and Grove Adventure playground, LJ Masterplan) Ive seen senior officers/ Senior Cllrs attempt to push through things with misuse of consultation.

I woud also inclde the consultation on the Libraries/ Parks and Leisure services. Which this Council did appaling job on. Called Culture 2020. Which I took part in.

Ive also seen how the Council Estate Regeneration scheme is alienating residents against a Labour Council.

So no Im not going to support this Liveable Neighbourhood idea uncritically.

Ive spent a lot of my time in Brixton// LJ opposing this New Labour Council. Opposing Rec demoition, opposing sell off of adventure playground to developer etc. Im not against the Labour party. Im against New Labour ( now call themselves Progressives) who still run this Council.

 

[Rushy]

I think most people who come into this with the agenda of improving the city for pedestrians & cyclists are fairly open about what they want and why. ...

Then on the "anti" side you'll see what I believe are often disingenuous arguments. There'll be concern about the effects on this or that group, but really, they just don't want restrictions to private car use in principle, on an ideological level. But that is often not stated openly.

I hear you. Over and over and over, I hear you. I am in principle in favour of these zones but I don't agree at all with your absolutism. And whatever anyone says to the contrary you have already convinced yourself that they are probably hiding an alternative agenda (and you repeatedly remind us of this). You are driving a massive wedge. Can you see any point in further engagement?

Of course you can have a different opinion to me. If you don't want a response to it, don't post it up on the area's most argumentative public discussion boards.

There is almost no room for anyone to mention a cycling or traffic related matter without your expert and immediate moderation. Engagement is about as productive as debating the nature of God with a born again christian. There was a time when you despised that kind of smothering omnipresence in the Brixton forums. What has happened?

 

[teuchter]

I don't have a car. I am older. Nor can I afford a car.

You have made your position clear. These measures should be pushed through anyway. Without consultation. Fair enough. That is a viewpoint.

Because I take a critically supportive view does not mean I own a car or just got older.

My experience of Lambeth is that Im concerned how this particular New Labour Council consults and deals with its residents.

I am older so I have more experience of dealing with Council on planning issues- consultations on future of Brixton and LJ.

This experience has led to me seeing that Lambeth Council don't reallly consult people.

On a range of issues ( The Rec and Grove Adventure playground, LJ Masterplan) Ive seen senior officers/ Senior Cllrs attempt to push through things with misuse of consultation.

I woud also inclde the consultation on the Libraries/ Parks and Leisure services. Which this Council did appaling job on. Called Culture 2020. Which I took part in.

Ive also seen how the Council Estate Regeneration scheme is alienating residents against a Labour Council.

So no Im not going to support this Liveable Neighbourhood idea uncritically.

Ive spent a lot of my time in Brixton// LJ opposing this New Labour Council. Opposing Rec demoition, opposing sell off of adventure playground to developer etc. Im not against the Labour party. Im against New Labour ( now call themselves Progressives) who still run this Council.

I wouldn't ask anyone to support it uncritically. I'd hope you might support the principle while being critical of the council's approach. But what actually are the available options, for someone who supports the idea in principle? One is to try and argue the case for the benefits of what's proposed, without claiming it's ideal. That's what I choose. What's the alternative - to oppose it and help those who would like to scupper it, on a matter of principle to object to Lambeth's methods? I feel I know what the pra tical outcome of that is.

 

[Rushy]

I wouldn't ask anyone to support it uncritically. I'd hope you might support the principle while being critical of the council's approach. But what actually are the available options, for someone who supports the idea in principle? One is to try and argue the case for the benefits of what's proposed, without claiming it's ideal. That's what I choose. What's the alternative - to oppose it and help those who would like to scupper it, on a matter of principle to object to Lambeth's methods? I feel I know what the pra tical outcome of that is.

The is no option to support or object or cooperatively steer this (not for residents anyway). Because there has been no consultation.

 

[Winot]

The is no option to support or object or cooperatively steer this (not for residents anyway). Because there has been no consultation.

What would steering it look like, in relation say to St. Matthew’s Rd? Wouldn’t you just get a bunch of people saying no they shouldn’t shut the road at all and another bunch supporting it?

I do see your point in relation to consultation but I’m not sure what it would actually achieve. Having it as a pilot and then having consultation doesn’t seem a bad way to assess the viability.

 

[Winot]

And incidentally I have asked two of the major critics on these threads for their positive suggestions and they have gone strangely quiet.

 

[Gramsci]

I wouldn't ask anyone to support it uncritically. I'd hope you might support the principle while being critical of the council's approach. But what actually are the available options, for someone who supports the idea in principle? One is to try and argue the case for the benefits of what's proposed, without claiming it's ideal. That's what I choose. What's the alternative - to oppose it and help those who would like to scupper it, on a matter of principle to object to Lambeth's methods? I feel I know what the pra tical outcome of that is.

I need to go and have a look at to see it. The reason Council give for this is the pandemic and need to give more space to pedestrians and cyclists. Pedestrians to be able to socially distance and cyclist to reduce pressure on public transport. So I will judge it on that.

What does concern me is that Railton scheme does not necessarily seem to be about the above reasons. But I will go and have a look to see.

I think in the case of the Railton part of the the Brixton "Liveable" Neighbourhood what I think won't matter.

Officers/ Cllrs know scheme like this is going to get opposition.

Which is why road closures were renamed "Liveable Neighbourhoods".

So officers senior Cllrs are using pandemic to push this section of the scheme through. I very much doubt it will be dismantled after the pandemic.

 

[Gramsci]

And incidentally I have asked two of the major critics on these threads for their positive suggestions and they have gone strangely quiet.

You have said what you think. You don't believe in consultation.

 

[teuchter]

I hear you. Over and over and over, I hear you. I am in principle in favour of these zones but I don't agree at all with your absolutism. And whatever anyone says to the contrary you have already convinced yourself that they are probably hiding an alternative agenda (and you repeatedly remind us of this). You are driving a massive wedge. Can you see any point in further engagement?



There is almost no room for anyone to mention a cycling or traffic related matter without your expert and immediate moderation. Engagement is about as productive as debating the nature of God with a born again christian. There was a time when you despised that kind of smothering omnipresence in the Brixton forums. What has happened?

I think you're exaggerating. I just checked the post counts on this thread - which is one I started, so obviously I'm going to be active on it. The largest number of posts (96) is from me. Then it's 76 posts from newbie who has been one of the most extensive critics who I've obviously been responding to, along with others. It doesn't seem disproportionate to me.

You're right that an over-persistance with the same points can put some people off. The way I see it, when these issues come up on multiple threads on multiple topics, each one with some different people making similar objections, objections that I see come up over and over again, and which I see as misguided, then inevitably I'm going to end up countering them many times with similar arguments. That's no doubt irritating for you, because you also follow multiple subjects but I know you well enough that I'll not lose too much sleep over it.

On your last point, depending on what exactly you mean, well I don't have the power to ban anyone, nor do I have the power to moderate anyone. You know I might tread more carefully in other contexts but this is urban75.

I'm more interested though, in what things you think I'm 'absolutist' on. Because on this thread I'm generally arguing in favour of a principle that doesn't force anyone to give up their car - it doesn't even make them pay more for their parking space. It doesn't prevent them from accessing their home or anywhere else by car. It's something that's been successfully implemented in other European cities. It already exists in other bits of Lambeth. It's not even radical but people seem to be respinding as if it is.

 

[newbie]

So what do you think is the best way to achieve it?

It's really not my proposals we're discussing here, it's what Lambeth are currently planning that matter.

I'm not going to duck the question, I can but try to answer, but I'm not part of a group with a rehearsed position, and temperamentally I'm far more comfortable with deconstructing than I am with blue sky thinking. So I suspect I'm about to dig myself a hole, but here goes. I hope no-one can be bothered to read it.

Start from a place that prioritises public acceptance and accountability, which I think means class based equity as well as emphasising acceptance and accommodation of minority viewpoints and of course Equalities and Disabilities legislation, policy and so on. For all to gain some have to lose, but that has to be seen as fair. IOW best practice- I'm not attempting to write a comprehensive, watertight policy paper, I hope you get the drift.

Identify root problems- I've mentioned some above, ' pollution, noise, congestion, danger ', everyone can add to or reorder that list easily enough, we all recognise the problems
And root causes, which could start with through commuting, massive vehicles with huge engines as well as human behaviour.
Clear objectives, aiming to improve climate change, pollution related illness and premature death, road casualties, and other measurables.
Encourage improved quality of life, access to mobility but with better journey times, healthy lifestyles, better streetscapes.
Underpin with resilience and redundancy, which are sorely lacking from the impermeable neighbourhood proposals, and a systematic approach.
And there's real urgency.
There's huge amounts of work and evidence about all that, most of which I haven't read, though I'm unconvinced it all starts from what I see as the priorities.


Zonal extension of the CC and LEZ based on London road rationing- annual allowance calculated on some combination of home location, vehicle footprint, engine size, road usage. Initially administered via ANPR, vehicles are already databased on every journey, this simply extends that. Tradeable, because we live under capitalism, so those without a car can sell their credits to someone else, including those who want to commute into London (personally I'd vote to ban them completely but suspect I'd lose). Ideally moving towards a per adult basis, but that isn't quickly realisable and probably wouldn't be popular, so probably household based using Council Tax and DVLA databases.

I'll see what others think, but an approach of that sort at least makes an attempt to substantially hammer the main issues.

Beyond that, I'd like to see local logistics hubs, where packages are sorted for onward delivery by foot, cargo bike, drone, robot etc. If you like you could paint everything red and label it Post Office.

I doubt there'll ever be taxi ranks, but there's no real reason why most people couldn't walk to their nearest main road if they don't want cars in their street. They walk to their zip car.

I certainly want more dedicated cycle space and properly labelled quiet routes, but the infrastructure - and I give those on this thread credit where it's due- has improved massively and covid will certainly spur that on.

I'd like to see equitable resident vehicle parking arrangements- I can see no good reason why residents of some streets pay more or less than others for equivalent static road space. That should be London wide, although that's a massively hard sell.

I'll vote to ban SUVs immediately.

There's more but that'll do. None of it involves gentrified impermeable areas and sacrificial arteries where all the displaced probelms end up in the lungs and lives of people who have no other choice but to live there.

None of this can be implemented in the next few weeks, without public consultation. That's both a bad and a good thing.

It's unrealistic pie in the sky, of course it is, but that's taken me hours to write, and I can pick huge holes in it, but it's a sunny day and I've been seeing notifications come in for the thread and I haven't read any of it. l8r

 

[Winot]

Interesting ideas newbie and thanks for engaging. I’ll have a proper read when it’s not sunny.

 

[thebackrow]

You need one of these.

I miss the acre lane tank, complete with large pink pig in police hat Iirc

 

[sleaterkinney]

There’s been a few posts saying the traffic will just go elsewhere, but that’s not always what happens:

Induced demand - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Taking the results as a whole, there was an average reduction of 41% of the traffic flows on the roads whose capacity had been reduced, of which rather less than half could be detected as reappearing on alternative routes.[citation needed] Thus, on average, about 25% of the traffic disappeared.

 

[thebackrow]

So yeah, whilst I (and I think most people) want a substantial reduction in pollution, noise, congestion, danger etc I am far from convinced that authoritarian impermeable residential neighbourhoods is the best way to achieve it. The skewed and obviously outcome pre-determined consultations and the virtue signalling and posturing on this thread have done little to persuade me.

if only there were a country with a similar climate and geography (fewer hill, much more wind - very similar effect on cycling), and a large metropolitan area of a similar density to London that had spent the last 50 years experimenting and improving this approach. We could look at what they’d done, and see whether it had positive outcomes.

 

[Rushy]

What would steering it look like, in relation say to St. Matthew’s Rd? Wouldn’t you just get a bunch of people saying no they shouldn’t shut the road at all and another bunch supporting it?

I do see your point in relation to consultation but I’m not sure what it would actually achieve. Having it as a pilot and then having consultation doesn’t seem a bad way to assess the viability.

I don't know what other people would say in consultation. No one has had a chance to hear them. Of course there will be people for and against. Should we dispose of planning consultations because there will be people for and against?

Any outcome will have winners and losers. You don't need everyone's agreement. But consultations are valuable learning experiences. Even if it is certain that a project of some description is going to go ahead, consultation almost inevitably means less losers because it will usually be possible to address a number of the issues behind objections . And if people see that, many who are still losers - not all, of course -will acknowledge that they have been listened to. Consent does not mean 100% agreement.

I have nothing against a pilot but it should be your best effort and well thought out. in order to give it the best chance of success. It is reckless to just implement an unnecessarily rushed idea and say "let's see what happens". I have expressed my concerns above. They involve serious safety issues which could be overcome if the will is there. Much of the traffic on St Matthews during the day is for the Car Free Town Hall parking and so will not be stopped by a modal gate. It will just come in and out of one entrance - mostly the one closest to the Town Hall. It will almost certainly put additional pressure on that junction which was apparently acknowledged during steering as being dangerous. I am also concerned at no longer having an alternative to using that dangerous junction during busy hours. (It is often snarled up and it has taken three years for the wall to be rebuilt on the corner after a car went head first into it, trying to avoid a car coming in the opposite direction.



I was disappointed to learn that there has been steering with cycling groups but without residents. That makes their exclusion very deliberate. Cyclist input is obviously essential in a project like this. But we must remember that cyclist passing through spend perhaps 60 seconds twice a day - if at all - in the immediate area. The real area experts who know how things work are the people who live and work there. The introduction to Lambeth's exciting Introduction to the Cooperative Council Constitution says "Citizens are valuable sources of insight and expertise, and are often best placed to identify solutions to meet the needs of their local area." I find myself quoting this more and more often as The Cooperative Council does everything it can to bypass the people it is supposed to represent. It really does seem to hold them in contempt.

Bar the occasional twat, St Matthews Road is already a pretty safe ride - and there are absolutely no obstacles to walking. There are pavements on both sides and it is simply not a busy street for pedestrians. Anyone wanting an even more quiet alternative already has the leafy paths of Rush Common which run the full length of St Matthews Road (I often choose it both walking and cycling just because it is green). It is simply not an emergency which justifies ignoring local knowledge.

And incidentally I have asked two of the major critics on these threads for their positive suggestions and they have gone strangely quiet.

You are a very smart chap who has been thinking and debating the general principles for a while. It seems a little naive to put people on the spot who do not yet even have more than the most basic details of the proposal they are worried about and be surprised that they don't reel out a list of solutions for you to pick at. Walking away seems pretty sensible to me.

 

[Rushy]

I think you're exaggerating. I just checked the post counts on this thread - which is one I started, so obviously I'm going to be active on it. The largest number of posts (96) is from me. Then it's 76 posts from newbie who has been one of the most extensive critics who I've obviously been responding to, along with others. It doesn't seem disproportionate to me.

You're right that an over-persistance with the same points can put some people off. The way I see it, when these issues come up on multiple threads on multiple topics, each one with some different people making similar objections, objections that I see come up over and over again, and which I see as misguided, then inevitably I'm going to end up countering them many times with similar arguments. That's no doubt irritating for you, because you also follow multiple subjects but I know you well enough that I'll not lose too much sleep over it.

On your last point, depending on what exactly you mean, well I don't have the power to ban anyone, nor do I have the power to moderate anyone. You know I might tread more carefully in other contexts but this is urban75.

I'm more interested though, in what things you think I'm 'absolutist' on. Because on this thread I'm generally arguing in favour of a principle that doesn't force anyone to give up their car - it doesn't even make them pay more for their parking space. It doesn't prevent them from accessing their home or anywhere else by car. It's something that's been successfully implemented in other European cities. It already exists in other bits of Lambeth. It's not even radical but people seem to be respinding as if it is.

I'm not asking you to lose sleep. I am suggesting that you leave a little breathing room for people to express ideas which you deem misguided.

By absolutist I mean that you have adopted a seemingly "whatever is put forward by the council should be not be questioned and should be adopted as proposed and without exception" approach, possibly as a reaction to your disappointment after the LJ scheme outcome. Pretty sure that you even said something along those lines in one of your recent posts. But instead of looking it up I am going to grab a beer and take a trimmer to my hedge.

 

[Winot]

Rushy you are correct of course that it is valuable to information gather from locals/interested parties in order to perfect a scheme. I am less worried about this here because we are talking about cheap quick fixes that can be reversed easily (though of course they may not be). Agree too that it is clearly wrong to involve cyclists only - I didn’t know anything about that.

Ironically cyclists are very good at getting involved with and influencing formal consultations - they tend to ‘lose’ when they come up against the big guns like the barristers of St John’s Wood who scuppered the CS11 scheme to stop cars using the Regent’s Park Outer Circle as a rat run. Or when the council (RBKC) just lie about the consultation results as they did with the west London cycle route. Basically consultations favour those who are well organised/funded or who shout loudest - at least the way they are set-up. Hence my scepticism (oops I said it again I’ll get in trouble).

Anyway I’m not going to defend Lambeth who are clearly arrogant/incompetent. But equally I’m afraid I’m not going to turn down a gift horse when for once the (general) outcome is one I favour.

 

[Winot]

It's really not my proposals we're discussing here, it's what Lambeth are currently planning that matter.

I'm not going to duck the question, I can but try to answer, but I'm not part of a group with a rehearsed position, and temperamentally I'm far more comfortable with deconstructing than I am with blue sky thinking. So I suspect I'm about to dig myself a hole, but here goes. I hope no-one can be bothered to read it.

Start from a place that prioritises public acceptance and accountability, which I think means class based equity as well as emphasising acceptance and accommodation of minority viewpoints and of course Equalities and Disabilities legislation, policy and so on. For all to gain some have to lose, but that has to be seen as fair. IOW best practice- I'm not attempting to write a comprehensive, watertight policy paper, I hope you get the drift.

Identify root problems- I've mentioned some above, ' pollution, noise, congestion, danger ', everyone can add to or reorder that list easily enough, we all recognise the problems
And root causes, which could start with through commuting, massive vehicles with huge engines as well as human behaviour.
Clear objectives, aiming to improve climate change, pollution related illness and premature death, road casualties, and other measurables.
Encourage improved quality of life, access to mobility but with better journey times, healthy lifestyles, better streetscapes.
Underpin with resilience and redundancy, which are sorely lacking from the impermeable neighbourhood proposals, and a systematic approach.
And there's real urgency.
There's huge amounts of work and evidence about all that, most of which I haven't read, though I'm unconvinced it all starts from what I see as the priorities.


Zonal extension of the CC and LEZ based on London road rationing- annual allowance calculated on some combination of home location, vehicle footprint, engine size, road usage. Initially administered via ANPR, vehicles are already databased on every journey, this simply extends that. Tradeable, because we live under capitalism, so those without a car can sell their credits to someone else, including those who want to commute into London (personally I'd vote to ban them completely but suspect I'd lose). Ideally moving towards a per adult basis, but that isn't quickly realisable and probably wouldn't be popular, so probably household based using Council Tax and DVLA databases.

I'll see what others think, but an approach of that sort at least makes an attempt to substantially hammer the main issues.

Beyond that, I'd like to see local logistics hubs, where packages are sorted for onward delivery by foot, cargo bike, drone, robot etc. If you like you could paint everything red and label it Post Office.

I doubt there'll ever be taxi ranks, but there's no real reason why most people couldn't walk to their nearest main road if they don't want cars in their street. They walk to their zip car.

I certainly want more dedicated cycle space and properly labelled quiet routes, but the infrastructure - and I give those on this thread credit where it's due- has improved massively and covid will certainly spur that on.

I'd like to see equitable resident vehicle parking arrangements- I can see no good reason why residents of some streets pay more or less than others for equivalent static road space. That should be London wide, although that's a massively hard sell.

I'll vote to ban SUVs immediately.

There's more but that'll do. None of it involves gentrified impermeable areas and sacrificial arteries where all the displaced probelms end up in the lungs and lives of people who have no other choice but to live there.

None of this can be implemented in the next few weeks, without public consultation. That's both a bad and a good thing.

It's unrealistic pie in the sky, of course it is, but that's taken me hours to write, and I can pick huge holes in it, but it's a sunny day and I've been seeing notifications come in for the thread and I haven't read any of it. l8r

Lots of good stuff there. Not going to nit-pick over the details - basically I’d happily sign up to most of that.

However, that’s the theory. I suspect where you and I differ is that you are politically on the purist end of the spectrum whereas I am on the pragmatist end. So (roughly speaking) I think society progresses through multiple grubby compromises whereas I‘m guessing you’re a revolution kind of chap - no? Hence I will take a stumble forward rather than waiting for the great leap that never happens.

 

[Rushy]

Rushy I’m afraid I’m not going to turn down a gift horse when for once the (general) outcome is one I favour.

I understand that. We all do it. It's not a very sexy argument but it can't be argued with!

Anyway, I'm glad I got the 4 bulk bags of soil and compost for my raised veg beds delivered whilst the crane lorries could still drive straight through!

 

[Gramsci]

I went around the area today. Shakespeare road , St Matthews road and the entrance to Brockwell park on Brixton Water lane.

Here is Shakespeare road

St Matthews



Firstly this is pretty standard way to filter traffic off side roads into main roads. Its been done in De Beauvoir area years ago. Traffic can still access area but can't use it as through route. Not that controversial imo.

However this has nothing to do with the pandemic and need for social distancing.

So Im not happy Council is using pandemic as reason for implementing this. This is what I was told by Cllrs.

The entrance to Brockwell park has widened pavements

This I support. Its in line with need for extra space for pedestrians for social distancing.

There is one of these in LJ.

I do think that the actual pavement should have been widened out as was done in Brixton road by Boots.

Just putting bollards means two different levels. People don't often step off kerb into the extra space. People who have mobility issues/ pushing pram won't be able to use extra space.

So instead of spending money on blocking off the two roads the money could have been put into raising and extending the pavement.

Looking at that entrance to Brockwell park and its so heavily used I think more action should be taken. Stopping car parking on that section of the street for example and widening pavement more would be justified.

 

[Gramsci]

Lots of good stuff there. Not going to nit-pick over the details - basically I’d happily sign up to most of that.

However, that’s the theory. I suspect where you and I differ is that you are politically on the purist end of the spectrum whereas I am on the pragmatist end. So (roughly speaking) I think society progresses through multiple grubby compromises whereas I‘m guessing you’re a revolution kind of chap - no? Hence I will take a stumble forward rather than waiting for the great leap that never happens.

Not what you said few days ago. You dont sound pragmatic in these recent posts. What made you change tack?

post 382

If they involved residents it wouldn't happen.

and post 402:

Frankly I am tired of decades of mealy-mouthed inaction and consultations that slow down progress. Fuck it - a revolution is needed.

 

[sleaterkinney]

However this has nothing to do with the pandemic and need for social distancing.

It does though, public transport will not be able to cope with the same numbers and social distancing, that’s why we need alternatives.

 

[thebackrow]

However this has nothing to do with the pandemic and need for social distancing.

You’re right. Nothing directly to do with social distancing but rather to address how people can move around when social distancing means a 90% reduction in public transport capacity. A single decker bus now has a capacity of 8-10 passengers.

refer this Guardian piece

And the Lambeth covid plan

 

[Gramsci]

It does though, public transport will not be able to cope with the same numbers and social distancing, that’s why we need alternatives.

I see the point of putting in wider pavements.

I dont see how filtering the two roads - Shakespeare and St Matthews is relevant to this.

 

[thebackrow]

But I agree with you on the pavement widening. Brixton Road works well, the “road works” style plastic barriers on BWL and Herne Hill much less so.

 

[Gramsci]

You’re right. Nothing directly to do with social distancing but rather to address how people can move around when social distancing means a 90% reduction in public transport capacity. A single decker bus now has a capacity of 8-10 passengers.

refer this Guardian piece

And the Lambeth covid plan

I havent got time to read alll these links. I was posting about two specific streets- can u explain how they fit into thiis?

I have supported asking the Council to make Coldharbour lane a Frew way- no parking on either side of the street from Brixton to Kings. This is route to hospital, major bus route and space is needed for pavement widening.

So free way would make it easier for buses , cyclists, pedestrians and emergency vehicles to get around.

That imo would be justified alteration.

 

[teuchter]

Gramsci you cycle as part of your job right? So I imagine you are very confident cycling in traffic.

People who have not cycled much in london (or in urban environments generally) before find cycling amongst traffic very intimidating and it puts them off doing it. So providing as many quiet through routes as possible makes a big difference to the number of people you can persuade to use bikes to commute. And that's totally relevant to the current situation.

A lot of people new to cycling would not be comfortable cycling along coldharbour lane for example - whether or not it were made a freeway.

Contrary to what some might assume, I've never actually cycled much in London. I've never commuted by bike. I've done loads more cycling in London during this lockdown than I had in the 20 previous years I've lived here. It's prompted me to seek out the different routes into town from around here (i'd never really bothered before), and it's highlighted how different it is when you can follow a series of quietways, compared to making your route along the main roads (whether or not they have cycle lanes). I've done a fair bit of this cycling with someone less confident than I am (and I'm not even all that super confident in traffic myself). So see it through their eyes too.

 

[Gramsci]

Gramsci you cycle as part of your job right? So I imagine you are very confident cycling in traffic.

People who have not cycled much in london (or in urban environments generally) before find cycling amongst traffic very intimidating and it puts them off doing it. So providing as many quiet through routes as possible makes a big difference to the number of people you can persuade to use bikes to commute. And that's totally relevant to the current situation.

A lot of people new to cycling would not be comfortable cycling along coldharbour lane for example - whether or not it were made a freeway.

Contrary to what some might assume, I've never actually cycled much in London. I've never commuted by bike. I've done loads more cycling in London during this lockdown than I had in the 20 previous years I've lived here. It's prompted me to seek out the different routes into town from around here (i'd never really bothered before), and it's highlighted how different it is when you can follow a series of quietways, compared to making your route along the main roads (whether or not they have cycle lanes). I've done a fair bit of this cycling with someone less confident than I am (and I'm not even all that super confident in traffic myself). So see it through their eyes too.

I lost my job. I did pick up a little evening job near Regents Park so have been going there and back every day. First of all no traffic. Ive been cycling through West End and its been a dellght. Nothing- just a few Deliveroo guys.

There is less traffic in West End than in Brixton.

Al traffic is going up Park Lane or Marylebone road. Through traffic not stopping in London. Even then its was initially empty.

It was so quiet.

Traffic is coming back to Park Lane and Marylebone now.

Mayor has widened pavements and put in extra cycle lanes in last few weeks.. Park lane is now one lane for traffic, bus lane and cycle lane.

Im pretty confident in traffic but its tiring. Ive noticed with no traffic its so much easier. And less stressful.

I dont think lockdown is going to end that soon. Major companies have people on home working. People arent going to go to shops in West End if they can get goods delivered to home.

London is going to change. Home working in particular is not going to end soon. Central London depended on these workers to fill shops and bars.

I see the "suburbs" areas like Brixton becoming more important for shopping and busier. Tescos in LJ is now aways busy.

What does surprise me is why Atlantic road was not "filtered". Its a main shopping area. Socially distancing is difficult. Early on in Liveable neighbourhood idea was to make it for buses and cycles only. This would imo have been good idea to do now.

Park lane now

Regent street today. Wide pavements for all those shoppers - if they come back in numbers.

 

[newbie]

I was quite careful not to say "anyone" and I gave some examples of issues raised that do need to be seriously considered.



I've got an elderly lady collateral damage anecdote as well if you want. A little while ago I met my neighbour - she was standing on the corner trying to cross the road. This is a side road that shouldn't have much traffic on it. You have to cross it in order to get from where we both live to the shops or the bust stop - there's no option to get there using only controlled crossings. She had clearly been standing there for some time. She told me she couldn't get across because of the number of cars that kept coming in and out of that junction. These cars are using a rat-run to avoid the main traffic lights - the lights that control the junction but also the pedestrian crossings. This is known as a rat run cut through. It's been discussed with councillors.

It was closed off in the LJ "trial". Bear in mind this is not blocking anyone's route to anywhere, other than making them use the main junction with the traffic lights. What happened was that people kept using it, just driving onto the pavements, and eventually smashing one of the planters out of the way. The block was removed when the trial was abandoned, and we were back to the constant stream of cars using this side road, mostly at excessive speed. You have to be careful crossing that junction - I have to be careful, but my elderly neighbour can't walk very fast so it affects someone like her much more than me. This is her only route to the shops, remember. A little while before that, I saw an accident at this same junction. A cyclist was knocked off their bike by someone turning in or out of that junction without looking properly. The cyclist was lying on the road (as far as I know they were OK) and there was an ambulance there. Meanwhile, cars were continuing to come in an out of that junction. The injured cyclist and ambulance were blocking the road. The response of the cars was to hoot their horns, and bypass it by driving along the pavement. A whole stream of them.

Back to the same cut-through road, but the other end. A few months prior (there are pictures posted on here somewhere i think) a car had mounted the pavement at that junction, smashing into a load of stuff on the pavement. As far as I know this was related to the same use of this cut through, turning in and out of a side road at speed, one that has no controlled crossings. Luckily no one on the pavement was hit by that car, as far as I know.

All of this - elderly people not being able to get to the shops easily - people knocked off their bikes and scooters (I observe a regular stream of accidents at another junction close by, forming part of the same cut through route) - cars smashed into pavements, this is what leaves a bad taste in my mouth, a very bad taste. Not just based on a one off dispruption to someone's travel plans, based on a continuing situation that seems to be getting worse rather than better.

LJ isn't my patch, I didn't folllow what happened there, nor can I picture which junction you mean.

I'm generally in favour of people being able to cross roads and cycle safely, funnily enough. Zebras, lights, light phasing, pavement shaping. TfL has loads of experience of micromanaging problematic junctions to promote better road use. tbh I'd prefer not to try to start looking at maps and try to work out my tuppence worth about the longterm consequences of that particular Victorian railway alignment..

There are too many places in south London where traffic is squeezed onto a single route without any available alternative. Other than massive rebuilding of the embankments to create greater permeability we're stuck with it. Reducing permeability elsewhere exacerbates the problems for far, far more people than it benefits.

Your anecdotal lady - she was on the bus.

I wasn't clear, she was outside Woolworths looking for a bus when the whole of central Brixton was traffic free. She didn't know how far she'd have to walk to find one, nor if they were actually running. She just looked defeated. It's stayed with me.