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

[Gramsci]

Interesting. Both the BID and the Market Traders appear to be pushing for a large part of central Brixton to be pedestrianised. So they don't seem to think that the "vibrancy" that attracts people to the area comes from the presence of lots of motor vehicles

The revolution will be pedestrianised – the commercial argument for closing roads in Brixton

July the 4th is the date when those of us in hospitality are told that with proper safety procedures in place we can throw the doors open. For Brixton, this is immense with the wealth of pubs, bars…

www.brixtonbuzz.com

Theres a lot of micro level analysis going on in this thread. Is 'north Shakespeare Road" poorer than south Shakespeare? Ward by ward analysis suggests the assumptions about well-to-do areas are kind of splitting hairs. North Shakespeare may be marginally less well off than Herne Hill but it's only in the next band here and that's likely mostly influenced by it being grouped with the Southwyck estate (which is no different to Tulse Hill, Brixton Hill at a ward level).
View attachment 219015

View attachment 219014
Source - which might also give some context. These first changes are not happening in isolation. They're not the only LTNs that are coming.

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/lsp-app-six-b-strategic-neighbourhoods-analysis-v1.pdf

Im not micro analysing. Im looking at the comments on the Commonplace website.

 

[Gramsci]

The revolution will be pedestrianised – the commercial argument for closing roads in Brixton

July the 4th is the date when those of us in hospitality are told that with proper safety procedures in place we can throw the doors open. For Brixton, this is immense with the wealth of pubs, bars…

www.brixtonbuzz.com

This article is saying buses will have to be re routed for the convenience of business.

Sorry but Im not having this.

The original Atlantic road proposals were for Atlantic road to be for buses and cycles.

This article is for the benefit of business in the entertainment / bar / restuarent sector.

Which is the group of business that dominate Brixton BID.

I dont see how this proposal is going to benefit those who need to use public transport.

 

[Gramsci]

The revolution will be pedestrianised – the commercial argument for closing roads in Brixton

July the 4th is the date when those of us in hospitality are told that with proper safety procedures in place we can throw the doors open. For Brixton, this is immense with the wealth of pubs, bars…

www.brixtonbuzz.com

Although a couple of buses would have to be re-routed it is a small price to pay to keep business alive and flag a commercial revolution… but before imagining dining alfresco in spacious avenues, let’s not forget how red-tape, the mechanics of local town centre planning, the expectantly delayed TfL lobbying and plain legalistic lethargy can smother dreams

Where do I start?

This is neo liberal libertarianism. Comes across as Ayn Rand.

If only the plebs could be stopped using democratic means to frustrate business then all would be well.

Which has now been added to my concerns about the ideology behind the BID idea.

Does Brixton need buses? No it need the new demographic who can't wait for alfresco dining to restart.

How a pandemic can be used to change society- more al fresco dining. Get rid of buses. I despair.

 

[newbie]

Thanks for taking the time. There's no point in more slabs of repetitious text, so just a couple of the points.

No, that's all complete nonsense, and rubbish like this makes me feel it's a waste of time typing out patient replies. I don't see how you can write this if you have made a genuine attempt to understand my position, and aren't trying to deliberately misrepresent me in a dishonest manner.
Personal mobility is something that I absolutely value - that's the whole reason I care about this. My view is that car dependence reduces personal mobility, and it disproportionately reduces mobility for the less privileged. You might disagree about that, but that doesn't mean you can decide that I therefore do not value personal mobility. Nothing I have written on this supports that. I also have never said that just because my interests can be accommodated without a car, everyone else's should be too. I have repeatedly explained how - in my opinion - people who do not have my privileges of health and age are disadvantaged by car dominance. I have also never said it's "just the local chunk of overall traffic" I want to target.

So would you like to apologise for what you have said?

I apologise if you're hurt, or feel misrepresented, by what I wrote. I don't want to cause offence or personalise anything. I confess I probably rolled up your individual attitudes with those of other campaigners working from a similar script. 'You' was more of a composite than the specific individual behind the screenname.

I can't tell how other people read what I write, but I was attempting to characterise how attitudes have been conveyed to me, across this and other threads, but with no intention of misrepresenting you personally.

That said, I don't recall ever before seeing you mention, promote or defend widespread availability of general personal mobility, merely of specific methods, walk, cycle, bus. I've seen you write many times about restricting mobility, both by method, private car, and specific type, short motor journeys undertaken by Londoners. I've seen endless promotion of how much better so-called livable streets would be for residents without such journeys being undertaken by others. I've seen many explanations of how car dominance creates disadvantage but very little mention of the practical dynamics of how people should undertake the sorts of short journeys I asked about (btw I forgot churches, they generate loads of traffic). I've seen many attacks on car owners making short journeys but noticed you mention Uber and deliveries only when prodded repeatedly.

If that overall impression should actually have amounted to "car dependence reduces personal mobility, and it disproportionately reduces mobility for the less privileged" then I've clearly misapprehended, and I apologise.

Meanwhile you feel free carry on accusing me (and anyone else who doesn't share your vision) of dishonesty and disingenuous posting, as you've done across many threads and many years.

I don't think of what has been designated as the "Loughborough Neighbourhood" as particularly well to do. Do you?

View attachment 219010

This is after all the neighbourhood where the previous attempts at road changes were criticised as beeing imposed on a working class area by gentrifying outsiders.

Well now. Lambeth's website is dreadful, so maybe I've missed something but my understanding is that these are the schemes under discussion/ being implemented right now, under cover of the Covid response.



So what has a neighbourhood that isn't part of that got to do with anything? People living there are among those for whom you previously suggested "the right response is to ask that their neighbourhood can have the same".

Let's try again, which of those schemes won't disproportionately benefit 'well to do' owner occupiers and landlords?

No, I don't think it's possible to ignore the phenomenon of gentrification in Brixton, and I don't ignore it.

Good. I'm sure you've explained many times how central to your thinking is the differential impact of these schemes on the interests of landlords, business owners and owner occupier on the one hand and private tenants or those at risk of social cleansing on the other.

 

[teuchter]

That said, I don't recall ever before seeing you mention, promote or defend widespread availability of general personal mobility, merely of specific methods, walk, cycle, bus. I've seen you write many times about restricting mobility, both by method, private car, and specific type, short motor journeys undertaken by Londoners. I've seen endless promotion of how much better so-called livable streets would be for residents without such journeys being undertaken by others. I've seen many explanations of how car dominance creates disadvantage but very little mention of the practical dynamics of how people should undertake the sorts of short journeys I asked about (btw I forgot churches, they generate loads of traffic). I've seen many attacks on car owners making short journeys but noticed you mention Uber and deliveries only when prodded repeatedly.

Well here's just one example from another thread.

I should swiftly exterminate this red herring too. It is easy to provide reserved parking spaces, and easy to allow exceptions to "car-free" rules for those with disabled badges. It's just not an issue.

And use the opportunity to point out that many people have disabilities which mean they can't drive (whether they can afford it or not). The better the public transport provision, the more freedom and independence this group of people can have. Much of the same applies to the elderly.

Look at the progress we've made in London with wheelchair accessible buses. Lots of people can now make journeys where previously they would have been dependent on family or friends. And the more wheelchairs we see on buses, the more normalised it can become and the less of an issue it needs to be.

In terms of how people should make the kinds of journeys you asked about - the answer is not very complicated. If we were talking about a scheme that actually stopped cars from getting to certain places, they would need very careful consideration. But we're not. All of the journeys can still be made - the difference is that in some cases they will take a bit longer. Clearly we disagree about whether it is acceptable to make them take a bit longer, because we disagree about the benefits that are gained in return.

But asking the question "what are these people supposed to do" seems to ignore the fact that loads of people already have to do all this stuff without a car. In London the majority of people. Certain the majority of people in the most disadvantaged circumstances. If you looked at the figures in the document I posted yesterday, you'll notice that as well as access to private vehicles correlating with wealth, if you have health problems or disabilities you are much less likely to have access. So if we are talking about, say, elderly people, or wheelchair users, (or even healthy kids) why are we focusing on the ones who already have the best access to mobility solutions? The ones that already have access to a car? Why is the spotlight on them, and the fact that their journey may take somewhat longer? Why are we not looking at those who do not have that privilege - who generally will be the majority of people? Because things like less traffic, designated quiet walking routes and things like that are to these people's advantage.


I can't spend loads of time on this today. Maybe I'll come back to it another time.

 

[newbie]

I'd like to see more regulation of Uber et al, because excessive use can undermine public transport, especially when it is priced below cost because it's being subsidised by venture capital in a long-game effort to do exactly that - undermine public transport. I refuse to have the Uber app on my phone. Ubers etc are known to cause a congestion problem in central London in particular.

Uber is an example, other cabfirms are available, a few years ago Addison Lee would have been more pertinent. Back then the no car = material disadvantage equation had a lot more force than it does now, despite the number of times it's trotted out.

That's not really true - if you own a car, you make very different journey choices compared to someone who doesn't own a car but has access to something like Zip. That's why I think Zip in principle is a good thing - it encourages people to not own a car.

Sure, but let's not separate Zip, Uber etc into different categories. The internet has changed things.

Taken together they emphasise that every single time someone tells me car ownership round here is low they're, deliberately or otherwise, missing the salient point that the convenience and lower annual cost of modern options encourage people to not own a car. Unless they spell it out of course, but funnily enough no-one seems to. The supermarket delivery model feeds into that as well, .

You're right though, the easy availability, and low cost, of such options really does affect journey choices though it's two edged. Before Zip availability, car hire had real difficulties built in, occasional drivers were more likely to buy, park and drive their own car. Very few people drive their own car to the tube, but plenty get an Uber (other companies are available), especially when it's raining; anecdotally i know a number of women who won't walk the streets, particularly quiet ones after dark, but have always had cabfirms on speeddial. Without such -motor car- options they'd either have their lifestyle options restricted or have the greater financial expense of car ownership and time expense of circling round looking for parking space. Widespread take-up of online ordering has decreased the 'need' for car ownership.

sfaics it's dead easy to write glib one-liners without bothering to unpick what is actually happening, especially if you don't notice cab stickers.

 

[Gramsci]

Uber is an example, other cabfirms are available, a few years ago Addison Lee would have been more pertinent. Back then the no car = material disadvantage equation had a lot more force than it does now, despite the number of times it's trotted out.



Sure, but let's not separate Zip, Uber etc into different categories. The internet has changed things.

Taken together they emphasise that every single time someone tells me car ownership round here is low they're, deliberately or otherwise, missing the salient point that the convenience and lower annual cost of modern options encourage people to not own a car. Unless they spell it out of course, but funnily enough no-one seems to. The supermarket delivery model feeds into that as well, .

You're right though, the easy availability, and low cost, of such options really does affect journey choices though it's two edged. Before Zip availability, car hire had real difficulties built in, occasional drivers were more likely to buy, park and drive their own car. Very few people drive their own car to the tube, but plenty get an Uber (other companies are available), especially when it's raining; anecdotally i know a number of women who won't walk the streets, particularly quiet ones after dark, but have always had cabfirms on speeddial. Without such -motor car- options they'd either have their lifestyle options restricted or have the greater financial expense of car ownership and time expense of circling round looking for parking space. Widespread take-up of online ordering has decreased the 'need' for car ownership.

sfaics it's dead easy to write glib one-liners without bothering to unpick what is actually happening, especially if you don't notice cab stickers.

Your correct that instead of owning a car the future is car clubs and apps to hire car for short trips. Its unlikely in my opinion that car ownership will last.

Which is my acquaintance who is all for road " filtering" would like to see these options restricted in the future.

To that person road "filtering" is first step to removing cars whether they are car clubs or hire apps. They aren't keen on electric vehicles either.

 

[teuchter]

Let's not start talking about uber as an "affordable" option. Firstly it's currently artificially cheap and this is not sustainable in the long term. Secondly, even at these artificially low prices, it is still substantially more expensive than a bus unless, perhaps, you are travelling in a group.

It's quite affordable for the "gentrifier" demographic, for sure. People who previously would be contributing to the revenue take for london's public transport.

 

[thebackrow]

Let's try again, which of those schemes won't disproportionately benefit 'well to do' owner occupiers and landlords?

Trying to process this again. So - we mustn't improve any area by lowering traffic volumes because it may increase the capital assets of property owners and people renting or in social housing don't see a capital gain (though the may well have secure long tenancies or choose to rent in the area long term so still get the benefits of cleaner quieter streets). Where do the (many?) owner occupiers who bought homes under right to buy figure in this - it definitely mixes up the clean lines that separate areas. Quick google - Right to buy started in 1980 so we've had 40 years of it. A 2017 council report says 425 council homes sold in 2015/2016 but I think the incentives were far higher at other times which suggests there are many 1000's of private homes mixed amongst the council owned properties (currently at about 24k)

Does that apply to other sorts of improvements to an area - because they all affect desirability and by implication house prices. Adding a bus route. Improving tube frequency. Planting trees. Even just repairing the pavements. What about improving teaching or management of local schools?

So what has a neighbourhood that isn't part of that got to do with anything?

Perhaps one of the other five unspecified, low traffic neighbourhoods they want to create in the next 6 months? or following later?

 

[newbie]

Let's not start talking about uber as an "affordable" option. Firstly it's currently artificially cheap and this is not sustainable in the long term. Secondly, even at these artificially low prices, it is still substantially more expensive than a bus unless, perhaps, you are travelling in a group.

It's quite affordable for the "gentrifier" demographic, for sure. People who previously would be contributing to the revenue take for london's public transport.

Shifting sands, the discussion was not about people who would otherwise walk to a bus stop, it was about the behaviour of those who might otherwise own cars.

Affordability is calculated by users on a case by case basis. While you, I or TfL might recognise why venture capitalism is prepared to subsidise Uber fares, for the person who wants to make a journey that's just an advantage. Whether you like me saying it or not, Uber has made cab travel more affordable than it was when dominated by black cabs, phone-up minicab firms, Addison Lee type accounts or whatever else.

 

[newbie]

Your correct that instead of owning a car the future is car clubs and apps to hire car for short trips. Its unlikely in my opinion that car ownership will last.

Which is my acquaintance who is all for road " filtering" would like to see these options restricted in the future.

To that person road "filtering" is first step to removing cars whether they are car clubs or hire apps. They aren't keen on electric vehicles either.

I agree with you, direct ownership was already reducing as rent to buy/ contract purchase has become more popular, and with the economic models for EVs involving battery rental it look to me like it's going to be only the bottom end of the 2nd hand market that will survive.

I too have friends who'd ideally like all motor vehicles removed. Siberia is experiencing temperatures in the 30s, it's a clear position that makes a huge amount of sense. It's not terribly useful in working out what to do in the next three months or so, though.

 

[newbie]

Trying to process this again. So - we mustn't improve any area by lowering traffic volumes because it may increase the capital assets of property owners and people renting or in social housing don't see a capital gain (though the may well have secure long tenancies or choose to rent in the area long term so still get the benefits of cleaner quieter streets). Where do the (many?) owner occupiers who bought homes under right to buy figure in this - it definitely mixes up the clean lines that separate areas. Quick google - Right to buy started in 1980 so we've had 40 years of it. A 2017 council report says 425 council homes sold in 2015/2016 but I think the incentives were far higher at other times which suggests there are many 1000's of private homes mixed amongst the council owned properties (currently at about 24k)

Does that apply to other sorts of improvements to an area - because they all affect desirability and by implication house prices. Adding a bus route. Improving tube frequency. Planting trees. Even just repairing the pavements. What about improving teaching or management of local schools?




Perhaps one of the other five unspecified, low traffic neighbourhoods they want to create in the next 6 months? or following later?

well, I suppose you've moved on a bit from a blanket denial that any of this is gentrifier led, but I haven't the slightest idea why you want to discuss right to buy or schools on this thread. The direct answer to the direct question is 'yes' but tbh I'm more interested in whhether you'd find something more to say about the increases in journey time of between 50% and 9 times that you highlighted earlier.

 

[teuchter]

Shifting sands, the discussion was not about people who would otherwise walk to a bus stop, it was about the behaviour of those who might otherwise own cars.

Affordability is calculated by users on a case by case basis. While you, I or TfL might recognise why venture capitalism is prepared to subsidise Uber fares, for the person who wants to make a journey that's just an advantage. Whether you like me saying it or not, Uber has made cab travel more affordable than it was when dominated by black cabs, phone-up minicab firms, Addison Lee type accounts or whatever else.

I think I've lost track of what argument is being made about what.

Are we saying that because things like uber have made private hire more affordable, therefore it's invalid to say that London's non-car owning, and disproportionately less wealthy, majority benefit from restrictions on car travel, because in fact even though they are not car owners they are in fact uber users, and the liveable neighbourhoods are going to make their uber journeys home take five minutes longer, which means it is disadvantaging them. Or something like that?

Or are we saying that uber use should be encouraged as a way of discouraging car ownership? And that by making those uber journeys take five minutes longer, this will be compromised?

 

[teuchter]

By the way newbie I forgot to ask yesterday.

There are various measures that have been in place for some years that are, as I understand it, aimed at stopping people using Ferndale Rd in place of Acre Lane or other "main roads" as an east/west route as part of journeys to and from central London. Likewise to stop people cutting through on Brighton Terrace/Trinity Gardens. All this achieved by a mixture of blocking certain roads (like Tunstall Rd and Dorrel Place) to vehicles where they meet Brixton Rd, and making eg sections of Ferndale Road one way only.

In many ways this is a kind of mirror image of the "Railton" zone where Railton Rd is the parallel route to Dulwich Rd. There is already a sort of "livable neighbourhood" bounded by acre lane, Bedford rd, Brixton Rd and the railway line. It's even similar in that one edge is defined by a railway line with very through routes through (just that one footbridge).

So by your logic should these restrictions, these restrictions that deliberately frustrate drivers, be removed? By your logic, would this not be a good thing because it would restore some equality to residents of Ferndale Rd and Acre Lane, by moving some of the pollution and noise from Acre Lane to Ferndale Road? And Ferndale Rd probably has a higher level of the "gentrifying" demographic on it that you describe. So would you positively support a removal of those existing restrictions?

Further up Brixton Hill, how about the block on Strathleven Road, which stops cut-through journeys between Brixton Hill and Kings Ave / Acre Lane. Should we also remove that?

 

[newbie]

I think I've lost track of what argument is being made about what.

Are we saying that because things like uber have made private hire more affordable, therefore it's invalid to say that London's non-car owning, and disproportionately less wealthy, majority benefit from restrictions on car travel, because in fact even though they are not car owners they are in fact uber users, and the liveable neighbourhoods are going to make their uber journeys home take five minutes longer, which means it is disadvantaging them. Or something like that?

Or are we saying that uber use should be encouraged as a way of discouraging car ownership? And that by making those uber journeys take five minutes longer, this will be compromised?

You said you have limited time today, I don't want to take it up, and we're going round in circles anyway. TBH I'm happy to see what happens for a few days and revisit this when the facts have progressed a bit, but I'll carry on if you'd prefer.

As to where we are, I mentioned being told, as though decisively, that locally car ownership is lower than elsewhere, and discussed the effect of Uber, Zip and supermarket deliveries on that bald stat. Then you told me that Uber journey cost is artificially low, so I pointed out that users prefer that. That's in a context of discussing what traffic is actually on the road, now in 2020, and how the imposition of impermeable neighbourhoods is affected by that.

 

[newbie]

By the way newbie I forgot to ask yesterday.

There are various measures that have been in place for some years that are, as I understand it, aimed at stopping people using Ferndale Rd in place of Acre Lane or other "main roads" as an east/west route as part of journeys to and from central London. Likewise to stop people cutting through on Brighton Terrace/Trinity Gardens. All this achieved by a mixture of blocking certain roads (like Tunstall Rd and Dorrel Place) to vehicles where they meet Brixton Rd, and making eg sections of Ferndale Road one way only.

In many ways this is a kind of mirror image of the "Railton" zone where Railton Rd is the parallel route to Dulwich Rd. There is already a sort of "livable neighbourhood" bounded by acre lane, Bedford rd, Brixton Rd and the railway line. It's even similar in that one edge is defined by a railway line with very through routes through (just that one footbridge).

There's loads of through routes (unless something's been closed recently and I haven't noticed?). As anyone who uses that stretch of Brixton Road knows, lots of vehicles turn into Brighton Terrace, despite there being little parking and the route to Ferndale (and the rest of the planet) being a splendid wriggle round. For those that can be bothered there's a link route to Stockwell as well as towards Clapham. When resilience is required, in the event of a blockage on Acre Lane say, it provides a release.

So by your logic should these restrictions, these restrictions that deliberately frustrate drivers, be removed? By your logic, would this not be a good thing because it would restore some equality to residents of Ferndale Rd and Acre Lane, by moving some of the pollution and noise from Acre Lane to Ferndale Road? And Ferndale Rd probably has a higher level of the "gentrifying" demographic on it that you describe. So would you positively support a removal of those existing restrictions?

Didn't someone say something about overplaying the hand? I haven't suggested anything should be changed, merely drawn on the outcomes of previous schemes to consider what is currently under discussion.

Further up Brixton Hill, how about the block on Strathleven Road, which stops cut-through journeys between Brixton Hill and Kings Ave / Acre Lane. Should we also remove that?

I did discuss this block in the context of reslience. Although the Lambert Road gate was abandoned it's a relatively impervious area, with a single, one way artery piercing it. There are pins on the map claiming that area has too much outsider traffic, demands to shut Branksome or make it a cycle route and so on. Not so different from the areas we're concentrating on. You could say that, as with Blenheim Gardens, the insiders are never satisfied, but they're probably not the same individuals as when the schemes were introduced. I do know that area gentrified fast and early, but some of that was the Sudbourne catchment effect I think.

While a quick glance shows resilience would be improved if the Strathleven gate was opened, no I am not suggesting that or any other changes. I'm trying to get people thinking about the effects of the current impositions.

 

[Winot]

I live in the Sudbourne/Branksome/Bonham Rd area (and no, we didn't manage to get our kids into Sudbourne).

My wife used to be on the Acre Lane Residents email list. There were apparently a number of long-standing complaints about the inconvenience of reaching Clapham by car from the area (because Branksome Rd is one way south and because of the Strathleven gate you have to drive south along Branksome/Bonham then east onto Brixton Hill, then north to the Town Hall and then west along Acre Lane). The flip side is that the roads around here are relatively quiet with no through traffic and I know this is appreciated by local residents (even those who own cars and are inconvenienced when they want to drive west).

IMO we are lucky that we have those closures. We are already a low traffic area. I'd like to see the same benefits afforded to others.

Although there are plenty of owner occupiers, there are also plenty of housing association places and a number of low-rise blocks of social housing. The last time I checked, Sudbourne School was 33% free school meals.

 

[teuchter]

I haven't suggested anything should be changed,

I know. But why not, if according to your criteria it would provide an improved outcome? Why don't you want to reduce air pollution experienced by people living on Brixton Hill or Acre Lane, by dispersing traffic onto other routes? It would also reduce driver frustration, which as I understand it, you do not like to see.

 

[newbie]

I live in the Sudbourne/Branksome/Bonham Rd area (and no, we didn't manage to get our kids into Sudbourne).

My wife used to be on the Acre Lane Residents email list. There were apparently a number of long-standing complaints about the inconvenience of reaching Clapham by car from the area (because Branksome Rd is one way south and because of the Strathleven gate you have to drive south along Branksome/Bonham then east onto Brixton Hill, then north to the Town Hall and then west along Acre Lane). The flip side is that the roads around here are relatively quiet with no through traffic and I know this is appreciated by local residents (even those who own cars and are inconvenienced when they want to drive west).

IMO we are lucky that we have those closures. We are already a low traffic area. I'd like to see the same benefits afforded to others.

Although there are plenty of owner occupiers, there are also plenty of housing association places and a number of low-rise blocks of social housing. The last time I checked, Sudbourne School was 33% free school meals.

yes, i can't recall the details but str the housing co-op was absorbed into a housing association. I guess it's still a patchwork of various sorts of social housing, owner-occupiers, private rental flats or maybe whole houses? As i said above i see no reason to doubt the various residents share attitudes to traffic and peace and quiet, irrespective of their tenure. So yes, you (collectively ) are lucky, though it's many years now and I'm going to guess the majority of residents, except perhaps those in social housing, have subsequently moved into that specific area because of the peace and quiet.

You have my sympathy about the school, that must have been really irritating., especially as Ashby Mill was closed and turned into flats, so a short walk turns into a long one.

 

[newbie]

I know. But why not, if according to your criteria it would provide an improved outcome? Why don't you want to reduce air pollution experienced by people living on Brixton Hill or Acre Lane, by dispersing traffic onto other routes? It would also reduce driver frustration, which as I understand it, you do not like to see.

because I'm reacting to what's being done on quite a large scale, not seeking to push ideas of my own onto others.

 

[Gramsci]

These arguments go around and around.

What I want is people being told what this is really about.

Stopping people using cars.

What I object to dressing it up as "Liveable Neighbourhoods" or "road filtering"

If that is the aim it should be clearly put to people.

And newbie is right about gentrification being an issue.

teuchter brought up Reclaim the streets a while back.. Thing about there protest was that it was as much against Capitalism as Cars. Cars were seen RTS as the prime example of capitalism. Which is correct. RTS ideology was reclaiming the "commons". Supporting striking Tube Workers etc.

The "Liveable Neighbourhood" idea is pale watered down version.

Or worse the Brixton BID version which is a neo liberal co option of a radical idea.

 

[Gramsci]

I think I've lost track of what argument is being made about what.

Are we saying that because things like uber have made private hire more affordable, therefore it's invalid to say that London's non-car owning, and disproportionately less wealthy, majority benefit from restrictions on car travel, because in fact even though they are not car owners they are in fact uber users, and the liveable neighbourhoods are going to make their uber journeys home take five minutes longer, which means it is disadvantaging them. Or something like that?

Or are we saying that uber use should be encouraged as a way of discouraging car ownership? And that by making those uber journeys take five minutes longer, this will be compromised?

Taking out Uber employment practises my get rid of cars friend does not want private cars or hire cars. They see "Liveable Nieghbourhoods" and "road filtering" as the thin edge of the wedge to gradually get rid of all transport based around cars. Whether they are privately owned or on demand app. Or electric.

They are quite open about it.

Im just not prepared to go that far. I dont want to see my neighbour who does painting and decorating lose his parking space on my street.

I dont object to people having to take five more minutes to get home.

But going on behind some of the conflict Ive seen is people with hard line views on either sides. The car nut I know how to drive type and the remove all cars on the other side.

 

[Pickman's model]

The revolution will be pedestrianised – the commercial argument for closing roads in Brixton

July the 4th is the date when those of us in hospitality are told that with proper safety procedures in place we can throw the doors open. For Brixton, this is immense with the wealth of pubs, bars…

www.brixtonbuzz.com

Where do I start?

This is neo liberal libertarianism. Comes across as Ayn Rand.

If only the plebs could be stopped using democratic means to frustrate business then all would be well.

Which has now been added to my concerns about the ideology behind the BID idea.

Does Brixton need buses? No it need the new demographic who can't wait for alfresco dining to restart.

How a pandemic can be used to change society- more al fresco dining. Get rid of buses. I despair.

no one who talks of alfresco dining should be allowed to do it

 

[teuchter]

What I want is people being told what this is really about.

Stopping people using cars.

It's not "really" about "stopping people using cars".

In order to achieve the stated aims of the schemes, you need to reduce the number of motor vehicle journeys, and to do that, you need to do things to disincentivise people using cars. In practice that means making certain journeys less convenient. Not impossible. No-one's car is being taken away. No one is being told that they can't use their car to get to any particular place.

What your friend does or doesn't want is a different question.

It's like objecting to an increase in social housing, because you heard that your mate's brother says that all private property should be confiscated, and he also supports an increase in social housing, therefore the idea that social housing provision should be improved is extremist politics in disguise and the next thing you know, we'll be living under communism.

 

[Gramsci]

It's not "really" about "stopping people using cars".

In order to achieve the stated aims of the schemes, you need to reduce the number of motor vehicle journeys, and to do that, you need to do things to disincentivise people using cars. In practice that means making certain journeys less convenient. Not impossible. No-one's car is being taken away. No one is being told that they can't use their car to get to any particular place.

What your friend does or doesn't want is a different question.

It's like objecting to an increase in social housing, because you heard that your mate's brother says that all private property should be confiscated, and he also supports an increase in social housing, therefore the idea that social housing provision should be improved is extremist politics in disguise and the next thing you know, we'll be living under communism.

Im not objecting to all measures to reduce car use. Despite what some may think here.

I am objecting to the misuse of language. I also object to the idea that "experts" should run society.

If the Council just said what you have about the reasons for it I would be happier.

Your analogy is incorrect. The way I see it its different sections of the middle class arguing with each other over this.

RTS- the example you brought up a while back- in comparison have a coherent message. Get rid of Capitalism , take back the Commons and have a cheap public transport system where the workers get decent pay and conditions.

 

[teuchter]

If the Council just said what you have about the reasons for it I would be happier.

At risk of repeating myself... I am not going to try and defend the way in which the council has managed consultation.

However - here is the introductory info to what the scheme is. The same link I put on the very first post of this thread.

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

I don't think it's a bad summary. Do you think that there is something that it's not saying, something about the basic principle of the scheme that it is hiding from people?

 

[thebackrow]

I also object to the idea that "experts" should run society.

You make it sound like you object to the idea of decisions being made by people with training and experience in general - is that really the case?

When you're sick presumably you just ask some random neighbour rather than a Doctor. If you ever had to go to court you'd shun solicitors and you'd just find some random at the pub to wire your house rather than using an electrician.
¯\(ツ)/¯

If anything I'd argue that the problem with our government is that, in contrast to a number of successful (and generally more left leaning countries) we don't require our politicians to have any background in their briefs.

 

[Big Bertha]

Im not objecting to all measures to reduce car use. Despite what some may think here.

I am objecting to the misuse of language. I also object to the idea that "experts" should run society.

If the Council just said what you have about the reasons for it I would be happier.

Your analogy is incorrect. The way I see it its different sections of the middle class arguing with each other over this.

RTS- the example you brought up a while back- in comparison have a coherent message. Get rid of Capitalism , take back the Commons and have a cheap public transport system where the workers get decent pay and conditions.

Objecting to experts is a bit weird imo

 

[Gramsci]

Objecting to experts is a bit weird imo

Can you just stop trolling this site.

 

[Gramsci]

You make it sound like you object to the idea of decisions being made by people with training and experience in general - is that really the case?

When you're sick presumably you just ask some random neighbour rather than a Doctor. If you ever had to go to court you'd shun solicitors and you'd just find some random at the pub to wire your house rather than using an electrician.
¯\(ツ)/¯

If anything I'd argue that the problem with our government is that, in contrast to a number of successful (and generally more left leaning countries) we don't require our politicians to have any background in their briefs.

View attachment 219337

Its what you said earlier. I've already replied to that post of yours.

Go back and look at your post 647 and my reply 649

Experts imo should be under the control of the people in a democracy.

I don't want a Technocracy. Which would be the end result of what your saying.

I've made that clear in previous posts.

I know you want to make out I'm being unreasonable.

The opposite is the case.

I've been repeatedly saying democratic ways need to be used. That people need a say and should be listened to.