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

[Crispy]

I've always wondered how that ended up like that - whether it's a quirk of the property ownership or whether someone just decided to build on the pavement at some point and no-one stopped them. Either way, the pavement ought to be built out around it, parking spaces on other side removed if necessary. As it is, there's not even a dropped kerb to let you go onto the roadway to go around or to cross.

Looks like the building line is historic. 1893 OS map:



There was no pavement on that side of the road, and the property line extended all the way to the junction with Brixton Road.

 

[Rushy]

It seems remarkable that there is no camera to record vehicles driving through LTN gates with their number plate covered. It's solely ANPR and if you cover your number plate up you are likely to get away with it unless you are unlucky enough to be spotted by the police.

 

[nick]

Looks like the building line is historic. 1893 OS map:

View attachment 309235

There was no pavement on that side of the road, and the property line extended all the way to the junction with Brixton Road.

Yours for £2.5m, if you fancy it. Not sure if the dog is included in the price

Check out this 4 bedroom flat for sale on Rightmove

4 bedroom flat for sale in Morrish Road London SW2 for £2,495,000. Marketed by The Modern House, London

www.rightmove.co.uk

 

[Agent Sparrow]

Yours for £2.5m, if you fancy it. Not sure if the dog is included in the price

Check out this 4 bedroom flat for sale on Rightmove

4 bedroom flat for sale in Morrish Road London SW2 for £2,495,000. Marketed by The Modern House, London

www.rightmove.co.uk

If I lived there I would “enjoy” constantly telling all the illegal parked vans to fuck off.

Also these stairs do not look compliant with regs!

 

[Rushy]

If I lived there I would “enjoy” constantly telling all the illegal parked vans to fuck off.

Also these stairs do not look compliant with regs!

View attachment 309299

They need a balustrade but otherwise the steps probably do meet regs (depending on the room they are serving). They're called paddle tread stairs, compact stairs, space saver stairs.

That place keeps coming on the market at ever higher prices but I'm not sure that it has ever been sold in the past 15 years. Currently listed as "reduced to £2,495,000".

 

[sparkybird]

There’s also Morrish Road with its weird house/studio/storage place which takes up the space where the pavement should be. You either have to properly cross to the other side and then back again, or just walk in the road past the house. Psychologically people are wired to do the second. Add in the big vans that park illegally on the double yellows, particularly infuriating at school run time, and motorists taking their technical right of way and it’s really not very pleasant.

Sorry to hear about this, it sounds dreadful. You can take a pic of the illegally parked vehicles and report them via the Lambeth website.

 

[sleaterkinney]

This is hilarious, the residents of Fulham want something - just don't call it an LTN.

https://tcprwest.com/

 

[BigTom]

This is hilarious, the residents of Fulham want something - just don't call it an LTN.

https://tcprwest.com/

ANPR controlled blocks are different to physical blocks tbf, although I would say either are LTNs.

 

[lblres]

Confirmed. Their third strike at least.

View attachment 308545

after locking down this account doctor cooray seems to be on her alternative

 

[Rushy]

This is hilarious, the residents of Fulham want something - just don't call it an LTN.

https://tcprwest.com/

I don't understand why this is hilarious?

I agree that the TCPR is similar in many aspects to the LTNs being rolled out all over the place. But it appears to be more advanced in its management of vehicle access and take a different approach to residents within a scheme. I would likely choose a TCPR over an LTN as it deals with most of my original concerns about their operation. So I think some sort of differentiation is justified, even if their aims are more or less the same.

I wondered how feasible this was when I first read about it about 18 months ago. I've not followed it but I guess that if they are proposing roll out, it has proven successful?

I'd also be interested to know how the set up and ongoing management costs differ.

 

[teuchter]

This is what they say about the differences



I don't think it's at all accurate to say that LTNs have a "very high impact on emergency vehicles, public transport and local activity" (I'm assuming they mean negative impact).

Bits I'd agree with are "more effective at reducing total traffic including local" and "focus on modal shift".

What they have in Fulham is something that stops people from outside of the borough using residential streets as cut-throughs. People that live in the area aren't restricted.

I don't see how this can lead to a better outcome for things like pollution and congestion on the main roads, compared to the LTN approach. It seems primarily to lead to a better outcome for car owners who live within the zone.

 

[sparkybird]

I don't understand why this is hilarious?

I agree that the TCPR is similar in many aspects to the LTNs being rolled out all over the place. But it appears to be more advanced in its management of vehicle access and take a different approach to residents within a scheme. I would likely choose a TCPR over an LTN as it deals with most of my original concerns about their operation. So I think some sort of differentiation is justified, even if their aims are more or less the same.

I wondered how feasible this was when I first read about it about 18 months ago. I've not followed it but I guess that if they are proposing roll out, it has proven successful?

I'd also be interested to know how the set up and ongoing management costs differ.

I thought the point about LTNs was to encourage drivers to swap short local journeys by car to another form of transportation eg walking, cycling bus etc. Taking these cars off the road gives more space for longer journey drivers. If local residents can still drive everywhere, this isn't going to be much encouragement. Nor space

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

This is hilarious, the residents of Fulham want something - just don't call it an LTN.

https://tcprwest.com/

“We don’t want cars, well, actually, we do want cars, just the right sort of cars… ours, obviously”

 

[liquidindian]

There's been a bit of rebranding going on, in Croydon they're now "Healthy Neighbourhoods". If the aim is to try and convince the headbangers that they're something different, then the very best of luck.

 

[sleaterkinney]

I don't understand why this is hilarious?

I agree that the TCPR is similar in many aspects to the LTNs being rolled out all over the place. But it appears to be more advanced in its management of vehicle access and take a different approach to residents within a scheme. I would likely choose a TCPR over an LTN as it deals with most of my original concerns about their operation. So I think some sort of differentiation is justified, even if their aims are more or less the same.

I wondered how feasible this was when I first read about it about 18 months ago. I've not followed it but I guess that if they are proposing roll out, it has proven successful?

I'd also be interested to know how the set up and ongoing management costs differ.

They are trying to create a low traffic neighborhood, just call it something different.

Actually though what they are doing is creating a private gated community without the gates.

 

[edcraw]

They are trying to create a low traffic neighborhood, just call it something different.

Actually though what they are doing is creating a private gated community without the gates.

The running cots via Ring Go must be pretty expensive with no charge for residents. Seems a way to over complicate a simple thing to pander to residents. A very West London way of doing things...



And tradesmen & Ubers needing to register each day is confusing and probably lead to more fines from people getting it wrong.

 

[Jesterburger]

Looks like it's a group of resident drivers who reckon LTNs might be inevitable and trying to pre-empt that with an approach that looks a bit like an LTN on the surface but still lets them drive everywhere (rather than outright hostile oppostion). I'll grudgingly accept it's probably smart.

 

[sparkybird]

They are trying to create a low traffic neighborhood, just call it something different.

Actually though what they are doing is creating a private gated community without the gates.

I think what they are proposing it really wrong.
If you are lucky enough to live in an LTN (in my view) then being inconvenienced by not being able to drive through it is the price you must pay.
Otherwise it's like having your cake and eating it. It is actually creating a real gated community, and will be even more decisive than an LTN

 

[Rushy]

I think what they are proposing it really wrong.
If you are lucky enough to live in an LTN (in my view) then being inconvenienced by not being able to drive through it is the price you must pay.
Otherwise it's like having your cake and eating it. It is actually creating a real gated community, and will be even more decisive than an LTN

When you say that it will be more divisive, who are you concerned will be excluded from driving into the zone?

 

[teuchter]

It makes the whole scheme optimised around the interests of car owners who live within LTNs. It lessens the benefit for the "greater good" because it sacrifices some of the potential to lower traffic overall, in order to pander to the most privileged.

 

[sparkybird]

Exactly what teuchter said.

 

[Rushy]

Exactly what teuchter said.

The references to a gated community are a little confusing. Just so we are clear - keeping vehicles not registered to residents or permitted under various schemes out of the zone is not what you think is divisive. You are OK with that bit?

 

[thebackrow]

It makes the whole scheme optimised around the interests of car owners who live within LTNs. It lessens the benefit for the "greater good" because it sacrifices some of the potential to lower traffic overall, in order to pander to the most privileged.

and, by taking through traffic off the roads within the LTNs it actually makes driving within the borough quicker and more convenient for those with permits - which is likely to induce extra local trips by them.

 

[alex_]

It makes the whole scheme optimised around the interests of car owners who live within LTNs. It lessens the benefit for the "greater good" because it sacrifices some of the potential to lower traffic overall, in order to pander to the most privileged.

It does let you introduce a scheme like this to little opposition, and you can then chip away at the benefits in a manner which makes objecting harder.

One example of this would be how parking permits are now cost variable per co2/km.

You could whack parking permits up 100 quid, but give an 100 quid discount to people who never drove through the anpr cameras

 

[teuchter]

The references to a gated community are a little confusing. Just so we are clear - keeping vehicles not registered to residents or permitted under various schemes out of the zone is not what you think is divisive. You are OK with that bit?

I don't think references to gated communities are appropriate for either version... In neither version (Lambeth style LTN or Fulham variant) is anyone prevented from getting anywhere, the routes are just made less direct if you're in a motor vehicle.

 

[teuchter]

(In fact the "gated community" rhetoric that's been going on from the beginning seems to have been quite successful in leading some people to think these schemes actually block access to some streets ... Including some people who would otherwise be supportive. The reality is that they make access a little more awkward for those in cars, and increase accessibility for other modes.)

 

[sleaterkinney]

I used the term gated community as only residents traffic is allowed through the gates.

 

[Rushy]

I used the term gated community as only residents traffic is allowed through the gates.

But no one is kept out - only vehicles which do not have a reason to be there (residents, public transport, authorised trades, etc..). Do you object to this?

 

[sleaterkinney]

But no one is kept out - only vehicles which do not have a reason to be there (residents, public transport, authorised trades, etc..). Do you object to this?

I do because the residents themselves don't have any restrictions.

 

[sparkybird]

The references to a gated community are a little confusing. Just so we are clear - keeping vehicles not registered to residents or permitted under various schemes out of the zone is not what you think is divisive. You are OK with that bit?

The gated reference came from elsewhere but I used it with the meaning of having an neighborhood where only those who live (or those working for the people who live) in it are allowed to enter. Everyone else is outside the 'gates' - unless they want to pay a fine of course.
This might be different to how you define a 'gated community' of course.
To me it smacks of those inside the gates get all the benefits (IE they can drive wherever and as often as they like with ease) and those outside get none. There is the divide. Does that make sense?