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

[newbie]

You're cranking up the provocation levels a little higher today, I see.

I've said all of that in the past with little followup from those who clearly care little about such minor matters. No-one on this thread has really agreed with me, so I've been less than confident about pushing the points. All I've done today is say the same things with less explanation and padding, because the recent pins show that it's not just me thinking along those lines.

 

[Rushy]

don't agree. They have a perfect right to a view.

What don't you agree with? You said it was a shame that there is no way of commenting on others' pins. I've simply quoted someone else attempting to do so?

 

[newbie]

I've never owned a car and I'm tired of being a victim of those that do drive.....

This comment is flabbergasting to me. If you have never owned a car THAT IS YOUR CHOICE. Car owners have cars for a reason and if you don’t know people’s circumstances you don’t get to judge.

apologies. I was answering back to the second sentence quoted here, but on reflection that's pretty futile.

 

[sleaterkinney]

apologies. I was answering back to the second sentence quoted here, but on reflection that's pretty futile.

I mean, on the second sentence, Brixton has terrible pollution where was our choice on that?

 

[teuchter]

I've said all of that in the past with little followup from those who clearly care little about such minor matters. No-one on this thread has really agreed with me, so I've been less than confident about pushing the points. All I've done today is say the same things with less explanation and padding, because the recent pins show that it's not just me thinking along those lines.

I'm not sure what the options for followup are.
If you talk about things like displacement of traffic and increased pollution on main roads, well I can come back with some examples from other places that seem to show it isn't necessarily a big concern, and I can also take your point and acknowledge it and recognise that it shouldn't be ignored, and agree that it should be monitored and so on. And I can recognise issues with the skip lorries on North Shakespeare road and if it's really true that this thing will make traffic worse for people on North Shakepseare Rd and it's really true that most people living on that road don't want it then maybe Shakespeare should be kept open as a through route - it seems like the rest of the scheme could still function.
But once you're talking about the intentions of those pushing for the scheme, and saying that their real intentions are to suburbanise Brixton and shield the children of the wealthy, and using semi-coded references to reducing "vibrancy" and whatever else, well they are largely unfalsifiable claims. All I can say is that I don't think that is the intention, and the reailty of what the measures involve does not support it, and that I think those kind of suggestions are well designed to (a) be difficult to pin down and argue with directly and (b) deliberately lead people to think that the scheme includes things that it doesn't and (c) press certain buttons. And it often works.

 

[Gramsci]

The shame is because I'm well aware that a couple of the pins on the map were plaintively pointing out that without SR the only way out of that triangle is onto CHL. They were ignored, of course.

Ive noticed more traffic on CHL. Going to have to see how this pans out.

 

[Gramsci]

Interesting, I should have realised this was going on across other threads but I don't think I'm obsessive enough to start looking them out. Are Facebook and Twitter buzzing too?

Much earlier in this one I read around various Lambeth/Commonplace consultations and came to the conclusion they're deliberately engineered to produce or reinforce a desired policy outcome. The Palace Road picture is just an example of how blatant that is.

Whether that amounts to legitimate fine tuning or stacking the deck is a matter of perspective, I suppose. Had the council deployed similar tactics over, eg closure of libraries or monetising the parks I suspect there'd be howls of outrage, often from the very people who are happy to promote BLN results they agree with.

Even so, now that people not on U75 or the LambethCyclists mailing list or whatever are commenting on the Railton scheme, it seems I'm not the only one prepared to veer off message.

Consultation by counting likes is pretty silly anyway, unless we the public get to see the detail in the database- how many logins go round liking every green or red pin, how many pins mention anything other than traffic in one specific street (and whether the IP address is actually located in that street), and so on. Only the technocrats see that level of detail sfaik, only the politicians see their distillation of the results. The rest of us have to click pin after pin to try to build up an impression.

As my post 555 says Commonplace own sales pitch to public authorities and private developers is that one good aspect of this tool is that the Council has access to the database/ analytics. Which Joe Public dont. Commonplace say that its use for consultation is to smooth away opposition.

Joe Public is at disadvantage as the database/ analytics is not in public domain. Its the Council who have access to the "dashboard"

It does make me think twice before commenting.

Even then I also see people veering off message.

A selling point for Commonplace is that its meant to avoid the pesky "usual suspects" who turn up to meetings to scrutinise undermine Council plans. The "vocal" people. Who as one of my local Cllrs says aren't on message representative.

As Commonplace or similar platforms become more widely used I can see the same "problem" happening.

Talking to someone I know in LCC they put comments on these Commonplace consultations. They make it their business to know when these online consultations are active. I have no problem with that. Any well organised group is going to look at new forms of consultation and see how to influence them. But its going to defeat the selling point. Unless the analytics can be used to circumvent this/ see when its happening.


I been looking a bit at the reasoning behind Commonplace. There is discussion in academic circles about "deliberative" democracy. Consensus building. What Rushy was posting about. The idea is that people might support an idea ( reducing traffic) but oppose a particular way its planned. There is somethng to be said for deliberative democracy. This however needs to be embedded in the Council not treated as something to be used to just "fine tune" a plan the officers have decided on.

That was the idea behind the now aborted Liveable Neighbourhood consultation- more deliberative.

 

[newbie]

I mean, on the second sentence, Brixton has terrible pollution where was our choice on that?

It's a filthy, crime ridden innercity, with clearly evident poverty and social problems. By no means everyone was born here, and for the rest it wasn't compulsory to move here, and history indicates most won't stay for the longterm. Not everyone has the economic option to move, but at least some of the pins represent those who could choose to live in the burbs or more rural if that's what they want.

 

[newbie]

I'm not sure what the options for followup are.
If you talk about things like displacement of traffic and increased pollution on main roads, well I can come back with some examples from other places that seem to show it isn't necessarily a big concern, and I can also take your point and acknowledge it and recognise that it shouldn't be ignored, and agree that it should be monitored and so on. And I can recognise issues with the skip lorries on North Shakespeare road and if it's really true that this thing will make traffic worse for people on North Shakepseare Rd and it's really true that most people living on that road don't want it then maybe Shakespeare should be kept open as a through route - it seems like the rest of the scheme could still function.

When did 'rat run' become 'through route'? Come to that, when did the interests of people on a through route feature before, except as stats from elsewhere picked to show minimal impact?

What about other through routes, eg Milkwood Road?

It's almost like it wasn't properly thought through and all the affected people weren't asked, despite the consulation predating covid.

Railton is the first scheme to be implemented. It's emblematic. You've been trumpeting the universal benefits for months. Abandoning the principle at the first sign of resistance will have knockons, as i said earlier, when other people on other bits of the overall scheme also demand changes.

But once you're talking about the intentions of those pushing for the scheme, and saying that their real intentions are to suburbanise Brixton and shield the children of the wealthy, and using semi-coded references to reducing "vibrancy" and whatever else, well they are largely unfalsifiable claims. All I can say is that I don't think that is the intention, and the reailty of what the measures involve does not support it, and that I think those kind of suggestions are well designed to (a) be difficult to pin down and argue with directly and (b) deliberately lead people to think that the scheme includes things that it doesn't and (c) press certain buttons. And it often works.

I've tried hard to talk about unintended consequences and caveat those points in my longer posts, while also recognising the benefits of the schemes and paying attention to the economic realities. Rather than reproduce the script with a bunch of stats about why it's evenly, universally beneficial.

As for 'vibrancy', I'm absolutely not wanting to push any buttons. I used the word as it's featured so heavily in property marketing and nightlife reviews and all the rest over many years. As i said.

brixton property vibrancy


You've picked me up today because I typed a sentence not a tract,. Should I really write out all the caveats, explanations and qualifications each time I use a word?

If your complaint is that I'm suggesting that part of this is to suburbanise the home bit of innercity while retaining all the fantastic lifestyle opportunities the innercity will continue to offer near someone else's home, then you're right, I am. For caveats and that, see above. I find it hard to imagine anyone wants me to provide yet more words of detailed exploration of what strikes me as pretty obvious, I'll try. Perhaps your inability to deconstruct is that it is so plain.

 

[newbie]

I been looking a bit at the reasoning behind Commonplace. There is discussion in academic circles about "deliberative" democracy. Consensus building. What Rushy was posting about. The idea is that people might support an idea ( reducing traffic) but oppose a particular way its planned. There is somethng to be said for deliberative democracy. This however needs to be embedded in the Council not treated as something to be used to just "fine tune" a plan the officers have decided on.

Good post. To what extent covid has interrupted planned nudging and consensus building we'll never know, but Commonplace certainly deserve scrutiny.

 

[teuchter]

Let's focus on one thing at a time then. When you say people want to use these schemes to 'keep vibrant at bay', what does that mean exactly?

Is the implication that agressive/dangerous driving is part of Brixton's "vibrancy" and wanting to rid residential streets of it is problematic for that reason? Or is excessive car commuting part of Brixton's "vibrancy"?

 

[snowy_again]

[QUOTE="newbie, post: 16603121, member: Railton is the first scheme to be implemented. It's emblematic. You've been trumpeting the universal benefits for months. [/QUOTE]

It’s the second or third. Oval was the first a few weeks ago. There are many other London and UK examples of implementation. Mini Holland being the most famous London one. It’s less than minimum practice in at least three other countries I could list.

 

[sleaterkinney]

It's a filthy, crime ridden innercity, with clearly evident poverty and social problems. By no means everyone was born here, and for the rest it wasn't compulsory to move here, and history indicates most won't stay for the longterm. Not everyone has the economic option to move, but at least some of the pins represent those who could choose to live in the burbs or more rural if that's what they want.

So let’s not try and make it any better.

 

[Gramsci]

I was looking at the old Brixton Liveable neighbourhood docs. In them the main Street for change was Atlantic road. In Brixton yesterday and it was ,as usual, full of traffic and parked cars. Making shopping impossible to social distance.



I don't understand why this section of Brixton Liveable neighbourhood was not used as temporary scheme for the pandemic.

Instead of Railton

 

[newbie]

Let's focus on one thing at a time then. When you say people want to use these schemes to 'keep vibrant at bay', what does that mean exactly?

Is the implication that agressive/dangerous driving is part of Brixton's "vibrancy" and wanting to rid residential streets of it is problematic for that reason? Or is excessive car commuting part of Brixton's "vibrancy"?

Again? I did my best in this post

An attitude that suggests actively wanting the rest of the area to be as vibrant as it likes, but rather than the barrier being my front door it's the end of my street. I've been struggling to find better words and failing, I'll come back to it if I can think of a way to express what seems pretty plain.

 

[newbie]

So let’s not try and make it any better.

better for whom according to what metrics?

 

[Gramsci]

From the orginal docs:


OUR SUCCESSFUL BID
At the heart of our proposal are improvements to Atlantic Road to make it more people friendly.

Atlantic Road is an important and historic street in Brixton town centre with over 55 businesses on
the road itself and entrances into Brixton’s distinctive covered shopping streets and Brixton rail
station. It should be a great street for walking and cycling, but in practice the opposite is true, with
motor traffic dominating the space. Approximately 6,000 vehicles travel on the road each day and the
footways are inadequate for the number of people using them.

Our ideas for Atlantic Road include:

• Removing general traffic while maintaining access for goods vehicles
• Full access for cycles, buses and emergency services
• Extended footways, safer crossing points and junctions
• Refurbished and de-cluttered public realm
• Rationalised loading and servicing with incentives for low emissions vehicles
• A ‘zero emissions zone’ to tackle air quality issues

About Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood

We need your help to make the Brixton area a healthier place, with a thriving town centre, less traffic, cleaner air, more space for people and great for walking and cycling.

brixtonlnmap.commonplace.is

This could have been done first rather than a section of the scheme area that is not at centre of the scheme. Also is highly residential so going to get more local opposition from residents. Whereas the Atlantic road is justifiable as needed for socially distanced shopping. It was busy today.

 

[sleaterkinney]

better for whom according to what metrics?

Better for the people who won't have a busy, dangerous, polluting road running through their neighborhood.
Shouldn't we be trying to reduce motor traffic?. Is your objections to this based purely on where its happening?

 

[teuchter]

Again? I did my best in this post

An attitude that suggests actively wanting the rest of the area to be as vibrant as it likes, but rather than the barrier being my front door it's the end of my street. I've been struggling to find better words and failing, I'll come back to it if I can think of a way to express what seems pretty plain.

Yes but what aspects, exactly, of 'vibrant' are barred by some modifications to what vehicles can pass through certain points?

I read your previous post and it failed to actually make explicit what you mean. It was also full of terms like "not-quite-gated" and talk of delivery drivers being expected to "sod off where they came from" and similar. It was all entirely premised on the proposed scheme being something different from what it actually is.

So, which aspects of 'vibrancy' specifically are you talking about?

 

[newbie]

Better for the people who won't have a busy, dangerous, polluting road running through their neighborhood.
Shouldn't we be trying to reduce motor traffic?. Is your objections to this based purely on where its happening?

I've written far, far too much on this thread and covered all of that and a lot more umpteen times.

 

[newbie]

I read your previous post and it failed to actually make explicit what you mean. It was also full of terms like "not-quite-gated" and talk of delivery drivers being expected to "sod off where they came from" and similar.

That is exactly what the servant class- cab and delivery drivers, etc- and a few others- NHS, emergency services, BT etc- are being told to do. The only other motorised users allowed in are residents and their invitees, plus the odd random looking for somewhere to park, but that'll be heavily discouraged.

If that's wrong tell me what other motor users will pass the No Through Road signs. Take your time ast I'm going to watch the football now.

It was all entirely premised on the proposed scheme being something different from what it actually is.

That's exactly what impermeable neighbourhoods are. impermeable to motor users.

So, which aspects of 'vibrancy' specifically are you talking about?

the desire of some people who live in the inner city to use motorised transport (including electric) to get about the area in which they live, despite the fact that other people disapprove of their behaviour. And all the stuff I've already written about alienation, economic winners and losers, gentrirfication and insiders and outsiders. If you don't equate any of that with 'vibrancy' then fine, that's up to you, I've run out of steam for today.

 

[Winot]

Anyway.

This may have been covered already, but does anyone know how the ANPR is going to decide who to fine for coming into the zone?

I had assumed that it was working off a DVLA database of where people’s cars were registered and not fining them. Plus a database of commercial vehicles. But it’s been pointed out to me that this is probably against GDPR regulations.

 

[alex_]

Anyway.

This may have been covered already, but does anyone know how the ANPR is going to decide who to fine for coming into the zone?

I had assumed that it was working off a DVLA database of where people’s cars were registered and not fining them. Plus a database of commercial vehicles. But it’s been pointed out to me that this is probably against GDPR regulations.

assume you have to register your number plate as a resident, then there is probably an exclusion for short stays with no long stops - eg if you are in and out in 60m no charge To deal with delivery drivers, etc.

I’m sure that using number plate recognition is fine for data protection as long as you know what you are doing.

Alex

 

[Winot]

assume you have to register your number plate as a resident, then there is probably an exclusion for short stays with no long stops - eg if you are in and out in 60m no charge To deal with delivery drivers, etc.

I’m sure that using number plate recognition is fine for data protection as long as you know what you are doing.

Alex

Yes I can see that if you specifically register for that purpose then it’s fine. But has anyone seen any announcements to do so?

Wouldn’t your ‘in and out’ exclusion mean that it wouldn’t catch drivers who drove straight through? Unless there was a separate database of delivery drivers.

 

[Gramsci]

assume you have to register your number plate as a resident, then there is probably an exclusion for short stays with no long stops - eg if you are in and out in 60m no charge To deal with delivery drivers, etc.

I’m sure that using number plate recognition is fine for data protection as long as you know what you are doing.

Alex

But not if you are an incompetent Council/police force

Daily Mail — “ANPR remains dangerously unregulated” — Big Brother Watch

Defending Civil Liberties, Protecting Privacy

bigbrotherwatch.org.uk

Details of 8.6 million car journeys were exposed on the internet, making it one of the biggest data breach Britain has ever seen.

The breach was from an unprotected database of the network of Automated Number Plate Recognition (ANPR).

Silkie Carlo, director of Big Brother Watch said that this “astronomical data breach that has jeopardised the privacy and security of many thousands of people”. She continued:

“The incompetent management of this appalling mass surveillance system means (its administrators) will have no idea who has had access to the data, when, how, why or what they might do with it.

 

[Gramsci]

This scheme is being brought in very quickly. ANPR should require an assessment being done to justify it.

 

[sleaterkinney]

That is exactly what the servant class- cab and delivery drivers, etc- and a few others- NHS, emergency services, BT etc- are being told to do. The only other motorised users allowed in are residents and their invitees, plus the odd random looking for somewhere to park, but that'll be heavily discouraged.

If that's wrong tell me what other motor users will pass the No Through Road signs. Take your time ast I'm going to watch the football now.

That's exactly what impermeable neighbourhoods are. impermeable to motor users.

It's not impermeable or banned though, is it?. If you want to get in you can, this is closing it as a through route for people going somewhere else.

the desire of some people who live in the inner city to use motorised transport (including electric) to get about the area in which they live, despite the fact that other people disapprove of their behaviour. And all the stuff I've already written about alienation, economic winners and losers, gentrirfication and insiders and outsiders. If you don't equate any of that with 'vibrancy' then fine, that's up to you, I've run out of steam for today.

At the end of the day (I think) the area will be improved by this. I would question exactly how much edgyness is brought by a busy road.

 

[teuchter]

That is exactly what the servant class- cab and delivery drivers, etc- and a few others- NHS, emergency services, BT etc- are being told to do. The only other motorised users allowed in are residents and their invitees, plus the odd random looking for somewhere to park, but that'll be heavily discouraged.

If that's wrong tell me what other motor users will pass the No Through Road signs. Take your time ast I'm going to watch the football now.

I don't get what you mean. At the moment, a delivery driver shows up at an address. They deliver. They carry on somewhere else. I guess they can hang about in the area if they want; no one is going to stop them except maybe their employer. So, what changes? All that changes is that they might take a different route in and out. They are no more or less able to hang about, if they want to do that. There are no motorised users at all who are not "allowed in". Have you misunderstood how the thing works, or have I?

the desire of some people who live in the inner city to use motorised transport (including electric) to get about the area in which they live, despite the fact that other people disapprove of their behaviour.

It's news to me that a commonly understood meaning of "vibrancy" includes the ability to go around freely in motorised transport. So, when you said that the people in favour of these schemes want to "keep 'vibrant' at bay" all you meant is that they want to restrict people's ability to go around freely in motorised transport?

And all the stuff I've already written about alienation, economic winners and losers, gentrirfication and insiders and outsiders. If you don't equate any of that with 'vibrancy' then fine, that's up to you, I've run out of steam for today.

None of that stuff gave any specifics on what these proposals actually put a limit on. The only specific we have established is that the proposals limit the free movement of motor traffic, which doesn't seem like a great revelation.

 

[newbie]

It's not impermeable or banned though, is it?. If you want to get in you can, this is closing it as a through route for people going somewhere else.

You've lost me.

'impermeable' = 'closing it as a through route for people going somewhere else' That's how the word is being used, in line with the dictionary definition.

I said nothing about 'banned'.

 

[thebackrow]

Even so, some of the pins are fascinating, like the SE24 residents used to a 5 minute journey by car to their local center at HH now facing 20 mins each way;

At the moment Google maps is still showing all car routes from SRN to eg Streatham via the bridge, because obviously it'd be bonkers to go via LJ. Currently 20-23 minutes

You know you can drag the route around if you use Google Maps on a computer - so you can see how long an alternative route would take?

I know it's Sunday morning so it's quiet but it seems very unlikely any trip to Herne Hill would get longer by anything like 15 minutes in each direction. Somewhere around 5 minutes seems far more likely.

Same as Streatham - it's a single digit number of minutes longer. If you're going out, say, shopping for a few hours a few minutes at either end doesn't seem much.