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

[newbie]

It isn't, but it's one of the generic smears that certain people drop in as an accusation when they've can't argue on evidence. Just call it oppression of the working class or gentrification and you'll probably get away with it. If somethings going to make the area better and you want to argue against it - gentrification. Bloody gentrifiers, choosing to live their lives in an area and wanting to make it better, pulling up the drawbridge. Pah - keep it shit.

yeh

In turn -

• Permeability is improved for people walking and cycling whilst intentionally restricted for those driving to discourage car use. Evidence from overseas (Netherlands), and London (Waltham Forest) is that this is effective and the benefits outweigh the disbenefits. Traffic drops and air quality improves overall.
• Resilience. Assuming you don't want to maximise capacity and make every minor road busy I assume your idea is that that the minor roads create a pressure relief valve and give traffic somewhere to go if a main road is blocked. this just doesn't work as the capacity of the back streets is far less than the main roads so they whole area just rapidly gridlocks anyway. This happened when Brixton Hill was blocked because a speeding driver had crashed into a bus at 5am on a Sunday morning a few years back. All the roads to either side of Brixton Hill blocked up with drivers trying to find their way around and with drivers behaving like arseholes there was a serious hit and run on a child on New Park Road.
• Bus Journey Times. Usually they improve. Cutting the volumes turning off main roads into side roads actually makes the main roads run more smoothly - there are fewer collisions and less instances of buses being held up by turning traffic. The bus on Railton/Atlantic Road will run a lot better when the other traffic is cut
• Local peoples access. Every house is still accessible by car. Some trips, in some directions, will take a bit longer but maybe they'll be made in another way. (cross ref with household car ownership/income etc).

I get what you're saying about bus journey times. I hope you're right. I simply doubt it.

I'll pick up on resilience, because I've been hoping someone would address it.

You're right, the backstreets clog when the arteries seize, but it's still instructive to consider how it works. An unexpected blockage on Acre Lane by Lidl, for example. Doesn't matter what, collision, burst water main, whatever. Traffic can easily divert to Brixton Hill via Branksome and Lambert Roads. It's messy, it's slow, it clearly doesn't replace the main road, but it helps.
A blockage in a similar place on Brixton Hill has no available redundant route, except way up the hill there's the long way round via Kings Avenue.

That's an outcome, intended or otherwise of a previous creation of a relatively impervious area. As planned there was a gate outside the church on Lambert Road, but someone took an angle grinder to it a couple of times and the council gave up. Interestingly people from within the impervious heart complain about traffic almost as much as those elsewhere campaigning for their street become one. Human nature I guess.

Reducing the resilience, by gating the AL to BH through route as has been demanded on the consultation, will help how? All the pressure will be on Kings Avenue. < anecdata: During lockdown I walked along there. There were some little kids playing in the tiny front yard of a flat, separated from the pavement/road by a low wall topped by a bit of what looked like bamboo beach mat. I've never noticed them when the traffic was normal.>. A consequence of the demand to reduce permeability here is refelected elsewhere, on someone else.

If, as planned the other side of Brixton Hill is also closed to through traffic, the unplanned blockage pressure can only be relieved by Water Lane and the S Circular. Same with Ferndale.

I see nobody winning in this except those who live inside the impervious areas, but then my explicit aim is not to force people to behave the way I tell them to by a mixture of frustration and alienation.

 

[newbie]

That's not what's being demanded, nor what's being offered.

Well alright, add in the residents and their mates, tradespeople and so on. I took all that for granted, I didn't mean to imply an exclusive list.

What unconnected outsiders will venture past the No Through Road by motor, unless they're looking for a pay parking spot, and I doubt there'll be many of those. Why would they?

 

[newbie]

I looked at this earlier. I've looked at it again and I know what a Gini co-efficinet is, but I have no idea what point you think this makes.

Oh. Outcomes depend on assumptions as well as starting points, stuff like that.

You can concentrate on hyping the stats that bolster your position if you want, it's clearly a specialist subject and I'm not going to bicker about the detail of their applicability to a different place in a different time with different social conditions, especially given how little I know about any of the realities behind the glossy claims in Holland (or Ghent come to that). It's pointless. I want a much more rounded, consideration, at least noticing the priorities I mentioned previously.

TBH your blanket insistence that material economics have nothing to do with any of this means we start from such distant positions I think it's unlikely we'll agree on very much of this specific debate. But please keep on with the stats, i learn from them even if I don't give them the decisive prominence you do.

 

[thebackrow]

I don't personally see so much in it for people who live on the estates,

Just looking our local estates, whats really noticeable is that they were built without through routes so that they don't suffer from rat running. Nearly all built as a series of cul-de-sacs (or in the case of Blenheim and Cressingham, almost car free in the areas around peoples homes.

 

[teuchter]

Well alright, add in the residents and their mates, tradespeople and so on. I took all that for granted, I didn't mean to imply an exclusive list.

What unconnected outsiders will venture past the No Through Road by motor, unless they're looking for a pay parking spot, and I doubt there'll be many of those. Why would they?

Hopefully very few - because that's the whole point - to reduce motor traffic that isn't necessary.

On the other hand, I would hope to see an increase in unconnected outsiders passing through on foot or on bike, because these quietened streets will be more attractive to those people than parallel routes on main roads. And any bus routes continue to operate as before.

You are portraying it as some kind of gated community, to make it sound like something it is not. There are no gates - no one at all is prevented from entering the area.

 

[thebackrow]

An unexpected blockage on Acre Lane by Lidl, for example. Doesn't matter what, collision, burst water main, whatever

That seems an easy problem to solve. Use lockable gates/removeable bollards that the Police can remove when necessary. No rat running, and a lower volume of traffic overall so that when that capacity is needed for a diversion it's not already full.

 

[newbie]

Just looking our local estates, whats really noticeable is that they were built without through routes so that they don't suffer from rat running. Nearly all built as a series of cul-de-sacs (or in the case of Blenheim and Cressingham, almost car free in the areas around peoples homes.

And? You're right but what's that got to do with anything I said?

 

[thebackrow]

And? You're right but what's that got to do with anything I said?

This isn't a new idea. We have known for many decades that through routes in residential areas are undesirable so those estates were built without them. if rat running traffic is so great, why is no-one ever campaigned for increasing permeability to motor vehicles on those estates? Not possible everywhere but easy at Tulse Hill estate by the park?

The people on the estates already have the benefit of low traffic areas to live in. The fact they already have that isn't a reason not to extend those benefits.

 

[newbie]

That seems an easy problem to solve. Use lockable gates/removeable bollards that the Police can remove when necessary. No rat running, and a lower volume of traffic overall so that when that capacity is needed for a diversion it's not already full.

So rather than immediate, organic relief it's dependent on the police putting in Diversion signs and making clear that fines won't apply. It's not as resilient, is it?

The proposals for the east of BH don't include gates, lockable, modal or otherwise, they involve planters.

 

[newbie]

This isn't a new idea. We have known for many decades that through routes in residential areas are undesirable so those estates were built without them. if rat running traffic is so great, why is no-one ever campaigned for increasing permeability to motor vehicles on those estates? Not possible everywhere but easy at Tulse Hill estate by the park?

The people on the estates already have the benefit of low traffic areas to live in. The fact they already have that isn't a reason not to extend those benefits.

ok, it's true but the housing density is so much higher it's a benefit few who live on the Victorian streets aspire to*, not so sure about the other way round.

e2a ... or they'd presumably have gone there, they can obviously afford it ...

 

[thebackrow]

the housing density is so much higher it's a benefit few who live on the Victorian streets aspire to*,

Is it though? Most of the Victorian houses across Brixton have been badly converted into flats way below the room size standards that the post war estates were built to.

The actual housing density of the 'high rise' estates wasn't that high - which is one of the arguments against them. The spaces left between the blocks, and servicing space etc meant they were no denser than the Victorian housing they replaced. (which is precisely why there are now moves to knock many down and rebuild - as at Clapham South - to a higher density but generally lower height)

 

[thebackrow]

So rather than immediate, organic relief it's dependent on the police putting in Diversion signs and making clear that fines won't apply. It's not as resilient, is it?

The proposals for the east of BH don't include gates, lockable, modal or otherwise, they involve planters.

No, because where this has been tried elsewhere it's been found not to work. the whole idea of resilience through rat running doesn't work, however you describe it.

 

[Rushy]

Well alright, add in the residents and their mates, tradespeople and so on. I took all that for granted, I didn't mean to imply an exclusive list.

What unconnected outsiders will venture past the No Through Road by motor, unless they're looking for a pay parking spot, and I doubt there'll be many of those. Why would they?

That's the exact problem with St Matthews Road North end. It's a parking free for all for anyone associated with the Car Free Town Hall. They come and go all day and manage to fill every inch of resident parking bay, yellow line and even over driveways (when the town hall is operational) . Free of enforcement. They are banned in Acre Lane and Porden. This is the next closest spot. The restrictions will make it an enclosed car park requiring every vehicle to do a several point turn in a packed and narrow road before leaving, unless the ban is extended to here. Not pretty for a safe cycle route.

 

[newbie]

Hopefully very few - because that's the whole point - to reduce motor traffic that isn't necessary.

On the other hand, I would hope to see an increase in unconnected outsiders passing through on foot or on bike, because these quietened streets will be more attractive to those people than parallel routes on main roads. And any bus routes continue to operate as before.

You are portraying it as some kind of gated community, to make it sound like something it is not. There are no gates - no one at all is prevented from entering the area.

I'm presenting it the way I see it. In tune with them and us 21st century populism, if you like, although I suspect many proponents would be horrified at the thought. Part of top down class war, ditto. Authoritarian do gooders telling the rest how to live. Material advantage and disadvantage baked in now, this week, to create a longterm future. I'm not saying this is conscious or intended, but as with an awful lot of social policies of the past, who has the sharpest elbows matters and subsequent unpicking of institutional assumptions and bias takes a very long time, especially if you never get round to asking those most affected.

There are things I am absolutely trying to neither say nor imply here, because I am not equipped to speak for or in place of those to whom it matters most. Nobody wants this to turn into a future #MeToo or BLM style catharsis, but the possibilites exist, surely? In the way teenagers see postcode gates that I don't, because they don't really affect me, I'm not sure anyone can or should try to describe the gates seen by others who walk in different shoes. Does anyone ever ask them. Maybe in future they will.

 

[newbie]

No, because where this has been tried elsewhere it's been found not to work. the whole idea of resilience through rat running doesn't work, however you describe it.

I've watched it work.

'rat running' is a very value laden term.

 

[newbie]

Is it though? Most of the Victorian houses across Brixton have been badly converted into flats way below the room size standards that the post war estates were built to.

Most? Really? Not what I see, which is a lot of houses with one doorbell intersperced by those with many as well as the social housing.

The actual housing density of the 'high rise' estates wasn't that high - which is one of the arguments against them. The spaces left between the blocks, and servicing space etc meant they were no denser than the Victorian housing they replaced. (which is precisely why there are now moves to knock many down and rebuild - as at Clapham South - to a higher density but generally lower height)

Is that a statistical perception or an 'ask people who live there' perception of density?

 

[teuchter]

Is that a statistical perception or an 'ask people who live there' perception of density?

It's fairly well known.
The relatively low density of many post war housing estates is part of what explains the current pressure to rebuild many of them at a higher density, through demolition, infill or additional storeys.

 

[newbie]

That's the exact problem with St Matthews Road North end. It's a parking free for all for anyone associated with the Car Free Town Hall. They come and go all day and manage to fill every inch of resident parking bay, yellow line and even over driveways (when the town hall is operational) . Free of enforcement. They are banned in Acre Lane and Porden. This is the next closest spot. The restrictions will make it an enclosed car park requiring every vehicle to do a several point turn in a packed and narrow road before leaving, unless the ban is extended to here. Not pretty for a safe cycle route.

Oh, great, i use that.

I guess there are specific problems around parking in most places, eg proximity to churches matters a lot at some points in the week (er, used to, before the virus). I wonder what the future of parking will be? Once the impermeable zones are in place, and given how low car ownership is, there'll be relatively little demand for residents permits. Would I be wrong in guessing there will be demand to get rid of the pay and business spaces, after all, that encourages unwanted traffic inside the area. I've seen the visions of roads with cabbages or tabletennis in the spaces that used to be for parking, and i can see many finding that attractive.

Fits the winner takes most, frustrate/alienate model perfectly.

I've no idea what the prognosis for SMR is but I wish the locals well if they decide to fight rather than simply do as they're told. I'll keep my eyes open.

 

[newbie]

It's fairly well known.
The relatively low density of many post war housing estates is part of what explains the current pressure to rebuild many of them at a higher density, through demolition, infill or additional storeys.

that doesn't even attempt to answer my quoted question. Pressure from who?

 

[sleaterkinney]

The filters don't appear to be on the north end of Railton yet, does anyone know when they're going in?

 

[co-op]

Well yes, I think you've missed something. That's far too glib an answer to the most basic social question of all, "in whose interests...?"





,

That's a really long and detailed post, same with Gramsci 's one further up - I haven't really got the time to do a detailed reply that does these justice. But thanks for taking the time.

I should also declare my (non) interest in that I used to live in LJ for a long time in a "short life" co-op (in commas because it lasted decades) and a hard-to-let council flat on the LE but for all the usual reasons I got ousted from the area by exactly the process you describe, something which really saddened me and I'm still nostalgic for that time and place. That happened in 2013, so I'm a bystander really but I did live there from 1984-2013 so I saw a lot of those processes under way - way back in the 1980s we used to joke about Railton Rd being the shortest route between the Front Line and the muesli belt in London (even using "muesli" as a symbol for gentrification seems a bit quaint to me now).

My general reply would be yes, everything you say is happening, but I'd also say it's happening anyway and will happen with or without the whole area being a giant rat run - this is the curse of property prices. And while genteel traffic-free streets with super-expensive street food will exacerbate that process in those victorian streets, they are all already way way out of the range of anyone except those who are inheriting huge amounts of capital or are on huge incomes, and they have been for decades. Possibly the only way that those streets provide any benefit at all for people who aren't in that category is as places that allow them to get way they need to go without being relegated to the absolute margins.

I remember being vaguely involved in putting together some lobbying for better cycling provision when they built the Evelyn Grace Academy on Shakespeare Rd and we had a survey that showed that, when asked, 35-40% of the children said they wanted to cycle to school - that would have been 300-400 children. They were installing bike racks for 20 bikes. They were right of course, most of those children would never cycle, it's far too dangerous (or would be seen as so by parents) - and I couldn't in all conscience disagree with the parents. But what a tragedy for the health and well-being for those children and what a shame for the area that this can't happen. No it won't reverse the financialisation of the UK economy and the de facto role of London property market as a global reserve currency. But the idea that it'll only benefit the rich seems just plain wrong to me.

 

[teuchter]

that doesn't even attempt to answer my quoted question. Pressure from who?

Pressure from developers and cash starved councils mainly. I'm not advocating estate redevelopment or saying it's a good thing. Just offering it as an illustration that it's true that it's not really "high density" housing as is often assumed. And yes, I agree that technical density and percieved density are not the same. I think we are going off on some kind of extended tangent here though.

 

[co-op]

Pressure from developers and cash starved councils mainly. I'm not advocating estate redevelopment or saying it's a good thing. Just offering it as an illustration that it's true that it's not really "high density" housing as is often assumed. And yes, I agree that technical density and percieved density are not the same. I think we are going off on some kind of extended tangent here though.

It is a tangent but re density, definitely the post-war estates in Lambeth were built to relatively low densities compared to what is done now, half the point of them was to provide green spaces on peoples' doorsteps. At that time Lambeth had one of the lowest (maybe the lowest? Can't remember) amount of green space per person of any borough in London, in fact quite a lot of the house demolitions that were being done then were to clear space for a series of small parks like Larkhall, Max Roach, Slade Gardens etc. Famously this brought the council into conflict with squatters in places like Villa Rd. The borough had a falling population until the 1990s.

 

[newbie]

That's a really long and detailed post, same with Gramsci 's one further up - I haven't really got the time to do a detailed reply that does these justice. But thanks for taking the time.

I should also declare my (non) interest in that I used to live in LJ for a long time in a "short life" co-op (in commas because it lasted decades) and a hard-to-let council flat on the LE but for all the usual reasons I got ousted from the area by exactly the process you describe, something which really saddened me and I'm still nostalgic for that time and place. That happened in 2013, so I'm a bystander really but I did live there from 1984-2013 so I saw a lot of those processes under way - way back in the 1980s we used to joke about Railton Rd being the shortest route between the Front Line and the muesli belt in London (even using "muesli" as a symbol for gentrification seems a bit quaint to me now).

My general reply would be yes, everything you say is happening, but I'd also say it's happening anyway and will happen with or without the whole area being a giant rat run - this is the curse of property prices. And while genteel traffic-free streets with super-expensive street food will exacerbate that process in those victorian streets, they are all already way way out of the range of anyone except those who are inheriting huge amounts of capital or are on huge incomes, and they have been for decades. Possibly the only way that those streets provide any benefit at all for people who aren't in that category is as places that allow them to get way they need to go without being relegated to the absolute margins.

I remember being vaguely involved in putting together some lobbying for better cycling provision when they built the Evelyn Grace Academy on Shakespeare Rd and we had a survey that showed that, when asked, 35-40% of the children said they wanted to cycle to school - that would have been 300-400 children. They were installing bike racks for 20 bikes. They were right of course, most of those children would never cycle, it's far too dangerous (or would be seen as so by parents) - and I couldn't in all conscience disagree with the parents. But what a tragedy for the health and well-being for those children and what a shame for the area that this can't happen. No it won't reverse the financialisation of the UK economy and the de facto role of London property market as a global reserve currency. But the idea that it'll only benefit the rich seems just plain wrong to me.

Most longterm residents have seen it happening, but as time passes it becomes the norm, which is why I thought it owrth going into detail. Also there may be people reading this who've not bee round here long enough for perspective.

But no, I reject the 'it's happening anyway' argument for such a significant structural change on the local scaleas we're promised. It's not, though there's plenty of less far-reaching central plans and an awful lot of incremental development happening anyway, but this is quantitatively and qualitatively different.

Yes, onstreet homes are now mostly for the extraordinarily wealthy, but that's no reason to reward the current crop of owners/landlords or their successors.

Possibly the only way that those streets provide any benefit at all for people who aren't in that category is as places that allow them to get way they need to go without being relegated to the absolute margins.

I could have saved a lot of typing if I'd said that at the start.

 

[thebackrow]

Possibly the only way that those streets provide any benefit at all for people who aren't in that category is as places that allow them to get way they need to go without being relegated to the absolute margins.
I could have saved a lot of typing if I'd said that at the start.

I'm guessing you don't mean by being low traffic streets where they can walk or cycle safely and in comfort to get to work/school/shop/park and generally get around the borough?

 

[newbie]

You've messed up your post to make it appear I said something I merely quoted approvingly.
oh, and the needle's stuck.

 

[snowy_again]

There is a large amount of social housing, HA properties and coop owned homes in Herne Hill too.

 

[Rushy]

Plenty of cars and vans driving straight through the modal gate on St Matthews Road this morning.

Checked with the warden and they remain under instruction to allow Lambeth vehicles to park without enforcement. I noticed that Southwark council permit holders also appear exempt from enforcement.

It has made such a huge difference in the street since the town hall has been largely locked down. When they open back up there will be the usual parking mayhem and ten less places, occupied by the modal gate.

 

[teuchter]

I went through the Shakespeare road one yesterday evening and saw two cars go straight through it.

 

[Winot]

Checked with the warden and they remain under instruction to allow Lambeth vehicles to park without enforcement. I noticed that Southwark council permit holders also appear exempt from enforcement.

You really should tip off Brixton Blog about this. It'd make a great story.