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

[newbie]

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?

I hope neither of us have misunderstood but 'allowed in' was a very poor choice of phrase on my part, implying a 'No Entry' sign rather than the 'No Through Road' sign I mentioned immediately afterwards. So I hope we both agree the schemes will maintain a legal entitlement to enter but ensure that for the vast majority there's absolutely no point. Sorry for causing confusion.

As for the delivery drivers, you're confirming they'll enter and do their drop(s) then have to leave the way they went in, which is exactly what I've said loads of times. Drop at the south end of Shakespeare Road, then drive all the way round to Loughborough Junction and along SRN to somewhere that is in reality a short distance from the first drop. As now, they can't really hang about without risking a ticket, unless you're suggesting parking restrictions will be lifted.

I think most people get what I'm on about, but in order to head off further somewhat unnecessary nitpicks, I'll point out that while it's likely Waitrose or whoever will reorganise their routes to avoid that precise situation, I'm using it because I'm keen to avoid another long, boring essay on some other example, using maps and exact details of each road sign.

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?

fine. You appear to want to treat my figure of speech as though it's a legalistic or academic term used by someone with far better language skills, and in a far more formal context, than me posting on a forum. Carry on if that sort of thing amuses you, you'll grind me down soon enough. But bear in mind it's not me, tring to describe some of the implications of this policy that matters, it's how it's interpreted by the local population. As it's further rolled out we'll get a clearer idea, see whether the majority embrace the script you've written for them or whether, as i suspect, they'll have ideas all of their very own.

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.

absolutely. That's all it is and all that matters.

 

[newbie]

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. View attachment 218715View attachment 218716View attachment 218717View attachment 218718

yes, 9 o'clock on a sunday morning isn't remotely representative. The overall journey time you're showing from SRN to Streatham is more than 10 minutes shorter than I saw yesterday afternoon, despite yours going via both LJ and Brixton. That has nothing to do with real world conditions when people actually travel, but even so, on what you're showing me, extending a journey time from 9 minutes to 13 amounts to a 50% increase. Thanks, that's a handy rule of thumb.


As to what you obviously looked up but aren't showing, you're crowing about extending a journey time from 1 minute to 9.

 

[Winot]

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.

Are you really suggesting that because well-off locals have the means to move away that removes their right to complain about lethal pollution?

 

[Rushy]

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.

I don't think residents are allowed to go through the gates at all. No one is apart from emergency services and selected utilities.

 

[newbie]

Are you really suggesting that because well-off locals have the means to move away that removes their right to complain about lethal pollution?

Yes, that's exactly, precisely, unambiguously what I'm suggesting and what I wrote had nothing whatsoever to do with the question i was asked, ' Brixton has terrible pollution where was our choice on that? '

In any event this isn't anything to do with some notional 'right to complain' for the well off.

There's plenty of stuff you- and other advocates- have been virtually silent about. teuchter has at least attempted to engage on some of it. Why not actually explore the imposition of far-reaching social policy with the sparse consultation so heavily loaded? The material rewards for groups of (what I'm calling) 'insiders' (many very well off, many unlikely to be here for very long) and lack of reward for others. The increased burden along the arteries. The express intention of excluding 'outsiders' unless they behave in approved ways. How economic, social and culural class is played out in these schemes. How desirable policy outcomes are to be achieved by explicitly reducing transport network resilience and increasing traveller frustration, alienation and marginalisation. There's even the climate change implications of turning a 1 minute car journey into 9 minutes at a time when the roads are naturally quiet.

There's plenty I've tried to raise for discussion, yet most of what I'm getting back is nitpicking my words rather than any concerted attempt to analyse or explore the actual schemes.

 

[thebackrow]

I can’t find the comment now but someone made a point along the lines of “if you want to live in suburbia or somewhere rural then go live there” which completely misses the point of why some (many?) of us choose to live in Brixton / zone 2 London.

the further you go from zone 2 London the worse your transport options become. Worse public transport, even less provision for cycling and walking . It’s one of the few places in the UK where there is real potential to live and very very rarely need to use a car. The opposite is true - if you want to live somewhere that requires you to drive even sub 1mile trips and where no one will think that’s unacceptable move to the country.

 

[teuchter]

Yes, it's weird to call it suburbanisation.

 

[sleaterkinney]

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'.

I took it to mean along with your talk of gated communities etc and only certain motorists invited in that there was some restrictions on who could drive in or what parts they can get to. There isn't.

 

[newbie]

I can’t find the comment now but someone made a point along the lines of “if you want to live in suburbia or somewhere rural then go live there” which completely misses the point of why some (many?) of us choose to live in Brixton / zone 2 London.

the further you go from zone 2 London the worse your transport options become. Worse public transport, even less provision for cycling and walking . It’s one of the few places in the UK where there is real potential to live and very very rarely need to use a car. The opposite is true - if you want to live somewhere that requires you to drive even sub 1mile trips and where no one will think that’s unacceptable move to the country.

The only reason people move to Brixton is because they can get about without a car. Gosh, I learn something new every day.

The half million hits on 'brixton property vibrant' are no doubt dwarfed by searches along the lines of 'where can I live in the UK without a car' or 'where in zone 2 has good public transport and is more expensive than elsewhere' and 'where in the UK can I live and be most judgemental about other people using cars'.


ps, what's this 'very very rarely need to use a car' about? You don't mean that 'need' is subjective do you?

 

[Gramsci]

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?

"Filtering" roads is increasing drop off times for delivery drivers I know. They arent paid more to compensate for this.

Its why impact assessment needs to be done. The reality of this country is a lot of delivery jobs are paid per drop not per hour.

"hanging about" is not something the drivers I know do. Most dont even get a proper time for lunch.

 

[happyshopper]

Making car journeys take longer is a feature, not a bug.

 

[teuchter]

"Filtering" roads is increasing drop off times for delivery drivers I know. They arent paid more to compensate for this.

Its why impact assessment needs to be done. The reality of this country is a lot of delivery jobs are paid per drop not per hour.

"hanging about" is not something the drivers I know do. Most dont even get a proper time for lunch.

The solution to delivery companies not paying their drivers properly is not to design streets around what allows the maximum drop offs per hour.

 

[Gramsci]

The solution to delivery companies not paying their drivers properly is not to design streets around what allows the maximum drop offs per hour.

This is where I agree with newbie. The impact of schemes like this on section of the less well off population aren't considered.

Its not considered relevant.

 

[Winot]

There's plenty of stuff you- and other advocates- have been virtually silent about. teuchter has at least attempted to engage on some of it.

OK brief thoughts below:

Why not actually explore the imposition of far-reaching social policy with the sparse consultation so heavily loaded?

I agree that the consultation could have been better. Hopefully consultation after the event will be helpful to ironing out any implementation problems.

The material rewards for groups of (what I'm calling) 'insiders' (many very well off, many unlikely to be here for very long) and lack of reward for others.

Disagree with your premise. Air pollution kills thousands a year in London and disproportionately effects low income households.

The increased burden along the arteries.

Not inevitable. See traffic evaporation discussion. I know you are sceptical. We will have to see.

The express intention of excluding 'outsiders' unless they behave in approved ways.

Hyperbolic nonsense. The scheme effects drivers of motor vehicles not 'outsiders'. The ANPR camera cannot distinguish between the barrister from Dulwich and the decorator from Sydenham.

How economic, social and culural class is played out in these schemes.

Well that is a huge topic and I cannot hope to do it justice here. Suffice to say that I do not believe that a solution to the structural problems of society that is dependent on maintaining present inner city motor vehicle usage is either sustainable or equitable.

How desirable policy outcomes are to be achieved by explicitly reducing transport network resilience and increasing traveller frustration, alienation and marginalisation.

As noted above, it's a feature not a bug. We need to make (some) car journeys unattractive in order to reduce car usage.

There's even the climate change implications of turning a 1 minute car journey into 9 minutes at a time when the roads are naturally quiet.

See traffic evaporation point above. Also Lambeth needs to plan for what happens when lockdown eases.

 

[Winot]

I don't think residents are allowed to go through the gates at all. No one is apart from emergency services and selected utilities.

Ah OK I understand - thanks.

 

[teuchter]

All this talk of 'outsiders' and 'insiders'. There is a whole bunch of stuff that non drivers are excluded from, whether in terms of space or activities. It's quite acutely on display at the moment where people with cars can enjoy day trips to the country and seaside and those without are literally confined to places within walking or cycling distance of their doorstep and indeed are "frustrated" in doing so by rapidly increasing levels of traffic and pollution. If you don't have a car you are excluded from many spaces and activities. There is nowhere you are excluded from if you have a car. You are not excluded from any pedestrian zones for example. It is your car that is excluded, not you. And absolutely no one is excluded from anywhere as a result of these liveable neighbourhood schemes.

 

[Gramsci]

Been looking at some of the comments on the Railton commonplace.

Looks like changes to Railton road are generally supported. Its had speeding traffic for years. So reducing cars using it as through route gets more support.

Shakespeare road- this is not supported.

Its divided the road. What is now termed Shakespeare road north has a lot of negative comments.

Like this:

Particularly disgusted by Claire Holland in particular, and the other local councillors to a lesser extent, gleefully celebrating this on Twitter, arrogantly and insensitively ignoring the pain, anxiety and feelings of expulsion, disruption and lack of access this has caused us residents of the newly dubbed Shakespeare Road North. You have separated this community and increased social dislocation. For a LABOUR council, the complete disregard for its poorer members’ opinions and the effects it has on them is staggeringly arrogant and disappointing. You have the support of the millionaires row on Shakespeare Road south, so who cares about the scum on the north side eh?

On Shakespeare road north complaints about the skip lorry and Veolia depots. If the Council really wanted to do something these would be moved.

People in SRN don't feel they have been consulted. This scheme was put in place quickly with little notice.

So reducing traffic in Railton road is good idea. The Council didnt think about doing something to temporarily reduce traffic on Atlantic road where more space is needed for shoppers as part of this. This is imo a mistake. Given that reason for road alterations with little consultation is the pandemic and need for social distancing. This would be extension of the Railton road filtering through Atlantic road to junction with Brixton road.

Shakespeare road didnt need to be done at this time. Should have been left as it is. Until more time for consultation with Shakespeare road residents.

 

[thebackrow]

How did my “some (many?)” become

The only reason

?

 

[Rushy]

All this talk of 'outsiders' and 'insiders'. There is a whole bunch of stuff that non drivers are excluded from, whether in terms of space or activities. It's quite acutely on display at the moment where people with cars can enjoy day trips to the country and seaside and those without are literally confined to places within walking or cycling distance of their doorstep and indeed are "frustrated" in doing so by rapidly increasing levels of traffic and pollution. If you don't have a car you are excluded from many spaces and activities. There is nowhere you are excluded from if you have a car. You are not excluded from any pedestrian zones for example. It is your car that is excluded, not you. And absolutely no one is excluded from anywhere as a result of these liveable neighbourhood schemes.

There are outsiders and insiders. Outsiders want to get through the area. Insiders (which include motorists and non motorists) want the area to be more livable. As much as cyclists quote livability, they seem generally happy with through cycle routes. Interest on these boards does seem to stop there. It is notable that none of the posters arguing against consultation actually live in the areas affected.

The St Matthews project does not deliver on livability. I think sleaterkinney mentioned streets being safe for children to play and busy polluting roads being stopped as big advantages of these schemes. On pollution, St Matthews homes remain sandwiched between two main arterial roads - Effra Road and Brixton Hill. The reduction in pollution from through traffic on St Matthews will be entirely negligible. Yes I think those rat runners will be forced onto the main roads but they are so small in number that it will make bugger all difference to the main roads. On kids playing in streets, the remaining roads service over 300 homes. They are 200m long straight stretches. Council officers use it as a free car park and there are no turning areas. It is possible that a handful of nuisance through vehicles will have been got rid of but it is no closer to achieving some sort of safe family friendly zone. So we have a scheme to aid cyclist passing through which really does not deliver all that much for the people who live in it. And it could have done. If locals had been properly consulted.

I agree that the consultation could have been better. Hopefully consultation after the event will be helpful to ironing out any implementation problems.

Hopefully. But the evidence suggests otherwise. Consultation has not improved in years. It has only become worse. Lambeth will have the usual lack of resources and skills and focus will be on the next big project. I'll be delighted to be proven wrong in the near future.

 

[Big Bertha]

This is where I agree with newbie. The impact of schemes like this on section of the less well off population aren't considered.

Its not considered relevant.

It will have a positive impact on their ability to breathe.

 

[Gramsci]

It will have a positive impact on their ability to breathe.

Go away. Dont need your trolling here.

 

[newbie]

Making car journeys take longer is a feature, not a bug.

for sure, that's simply another way of putting what I said yesterday " increasing frustration is the explicit aim, not some sort of byproduct. "

 

[Gramsci]

OK brief thoughts below:



I agree that the consultation could have been better. Hopefully consultation after the event will be helpful to ironing out any implementation problems.



Disagree with your premise. Air pollution kills thousands a year in London and disproportionately effects low income households.



Not inevitable. See traffic evaporation discussion. I know you are sceptical. We will have to see.

Whe you say iron out problems of implementation what do you mean? Looks to me the Shakespeare road part of project is not supported. The Railton road part is. So would it be fair to say that after this trial period that if the Shakespeare road is stil not supported then its dropped?

Air pollution is better controlled by bringing ULEZ. Move to electric vehicles. If that is main aim of Liveable Neighbouurhood. Especially apply this to the Skip lorries and dustcarts on Shakespeare road.

I live on CHL this scheme is likely to put more traffic on my road. There are going to be winners and losers on these schemes.

 

[newbie]

OK brief thoughts below:

Thankyou. You're right, brief, in fact so brief there's little to grasp, but I'll pick up on the bits I've quoted.

Air pollution kills thousands a year in London and disproportionately effects low income households.

Air pollution is indeed very important. So too, I suggest is personal mobility. Seeking to curb the latter to cure the former, right now, when electric vehicles are coming onstream in bulk, well, it's baby and bathwater isn't it, unless you're ideologically committed to stopping other people doing their thing for reasons other than air quality.

You'd have far more impact on air quality by banning, or restricting, SUVs (something like 40 times as many sold last year as EVs, despite being more expensive). Round here there's little or no excuse for them, except as status symbols and because their wide wheelbase negotiates humps in comfort. So put in humps with a single central gap rather than one either side. Or chicanes. Or width restrictions. Increase parking fees for vehicles over a certain footprint, increase incentives for EVs.

Low income households don't tend to own SUVs, but living directly on the main artery streets is not something people with better economic choices tend to do, it's more likely to be those on limited resources..

Hyperbolic nonsense. The scheme effects drivers of motor vehicles not 'outsiders'. The ANPR camera cannot distinguish between the barrister from Dulwich and the decorator from Sydenham.

The trades class are of course allowed in, because, like delivery drivers, they provide a useful service. Do barristers do home visits? Or are they the friends and peer group of residents I've mentioned a number of times. Outsiders aren't residents, invited or useful, they're those who have no direct reason to be driving in a particular street, they're simply using it as a thoroughfare.

Well that is a huge topic and I cannot hope to do it justice here. Suffice to say that I do not believe that a solution to the structural problems of society that is dependent on maintaining present inner city motor vehicle usage is either sustainable or equitable.

This scheme will increase structural inequality, materially reward fortunate homeowners and landlords, disadvantage various identifiable groups I've already mentioned, unevenly spread air quality benefits andincrease marginalisation and alienation of for those caught in the feature not bug aspect. it doesn't have to be like that. The scheme proponent starting assumptions take no account of widespread social factors, concentrating on narrowly defined benefits which just happen to contribute to gentrification. Pure chance, of course.

As noted above, it's a feature not a bug. We need to make (some) car journeys unattractive in order to reduce car usage.

Dealt with above, but which 'we' defines 'some'? Please unpick that one for me, or the similar 'very very rarely need to use a car' question above that @thebackrow has ignored.

See traffic evaporation point above.

Is this back to pretending evaporation is close to 100%?

Also Lambeth needs to plan for what happens when lockdown eases.

They do, widening pavements, better segregated cycling provision, more buses (and probably, a major bus redesign if this goes on for long) and other measures will all contribute.

How does forcing traffic out of gentrified backstreets and onto arteries combat the virus?

 

[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.

is it possible to drive straight through though ?

 

[newbie]

The Council didnt think about doing something to temporarily reduce traffic on Atlantic road where more space is needed for shoppers as part of this. This is imo a mistake. Given that reason for road alterations with little consultation is the pandemic and need for social distancing. This would be extension of the Railton road filtering through Atlantic road to junction with Brixton road.

We've disagreed about this loads of times and I'm very, very reluctant to delve into AR yet again, because it's always been so intractable. But I've been working on the assumption that one of the objectives (and positives) of the RR scheme is that it will reduce, possibly even remove, the pressure on AR. It's certainly bold... I've always said there's no realistic alternative to the market stretch of AR for traffic coming along Railton. ISTM that solving that problem is part of the logic behind forcing all through traffic onto the Dulwich/Effra roads route or onto Milkwood.

Better (or some) traffic forecast modelling and impact assessments would have helped illustrate all this of course. We'll see what happens but I really intend not to get drawn into the details of AR/top of CHL yet again.

 

[newbie]

.

 

[Rushy]

is it possible to drive straight through though ?

Yes. It's just a narrowed road with no entry signs. Cars have been driving through the St Matthew's one all week. There is no ANPR yet. The Railton ones need to be large enough to allow the bus to go through.

 

[Rushy]

No sign of the Railton closures yet. It was chaos out there earlier today.

 

[newbie]

So we have a scheme to aid cyclist passing through which really does not deliver all that much for the people who live in it. And it could have done. If locals had been properly consulted.

As one of those cyclists I feel for you, as I've seldom had (or I hope caused) any problem there, that's why I like it. I'm curious though, apart from the parking problem, what else would residents have hoped for?

ps the dead space gap between the two sets of signs is really odd. has anyone explained why they'd do that in a street with parking pressure? I really can see why you're aggrieved.