Winot
I wholeheartedley agree with your viewpoint
(((St. Matthew’s Road)))
Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists
- Thread starter teuchter
- Start date
(((St. Matthew’s Road)))
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Seems unlikely they'd have a problem with someone in the st matthews rd area getting in touch and asking if it can be included their scope?
Rushy
basically a scrotum
Cute. But it's actually pretty shit.
newbie
undisambiguated
Agree. I do a lot of off road cycling and a long held gripe is the number of gates and barriers designed to prevent kids on motorcycles which actually obstruct buggies, mobility scooters and laden touring cycles. There's a fundamental question about restricting legitimate use to prevent a few non-legitimate users.
As for cherry picked stats, who'dathought?
Rushy
basically a scrotum
Ask for permission not be excluded?
I'm already doing this and they are open. But I've only just moved back at the beginning of lock down so can only represent my own, and a small number of others', views.
I don't blame the residents group. More of a case of this kind of confusion is what is to be expected when there is a lack of proper organised consultation by the council. Which is exactly the point I've been making all along.
newbie
undisambiguated
I have a lot less time for the views of a conservative association than I do for the stuff you lot obsess about, so if one of the (presumably unintended) consequences of this is to push people into their arms then these schemes are even worse than I thought.
That said, it's fundamentally dishonest to claim that everything on the pictured leaflet is made up, irrespective of the single point about emergency services which is not one I would personally make.
thebackrow
Considerably more Brixton.
That's an interesting view - I've always thought that the need for LTNs is in part driven directly by smartphones and satnavs. 'Rat runs' used to require some local knowledge and people wouldn't bother using them at night when the main roads were quiet. Now Google/Waze will redirect drivers down rat runs to save seconds at any time of day - my own road has definitely got busier outside old peak hours in the last 10 years while overall traffic levels have supposedly fallen.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Yeah that's my understanding too.
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
If only we could act without ideology or naked self-interest.
snowy_again
Slush
I love tories fighting against their own government policies
newbie
undisambiguated
I sort of agree with your point if not the conclusion. Sometimes it's seconds on an individual journey, sometimes more but the nature of those two rather different algorithms is to reduce the cumulative time all drivers spend travelling by spreading traffic across all the available routes. No AI will approach the overall problem by deliberately funneling all traffic onto the same routes and through the same pinchpoints. The growth of satnav use has directly led to lower congestion and shorter journey times, both good things. The imposition of LTNs will reverse that.
I'm also going to highlight "overall traffic levels have supposedly fallen" because the use of stats is getting beyond silly. That's a good thing, isn't it, so why not celebrate it rather than cast doubt on it? Same as upthread you cast doubt on the effectiveness of the 20mph limit. Didn't you strongly advocate that before it was introduced? Now you're downplaying the effect in order to continue to pursue the overall no-car vision you seek to impose.
newbie
undisambiguated
No particular reason why either of those is a bad thing, so long as they're clearly signposted and playing fields are reasonably level. My post was because none of that was apparent in the 'good leaflet'.
thebackrow
Considerably more Brixton.
Woaahh. Firstly - any evidence for your claims of lower congestion and shorter journey times? Anecdotally I hear of complaints that traffic speeds are slowing and congestion increasing - it certainly seems to be what the cabbies claim.
Your own ideological position seems to be fundamentally pro-car - that we should seek to maximise the capacity of the road network for motor vehicles (not for people to move - private cars are a very space inefficient way of moving people around as average occupancy is below 1.5 people). All the evidence from studies of induced demand says that motor traffic will expand to fill the available space - widen the ring road and suddenly people start driving to the supermarket on the other side of town and congestion doesn't reduce. (can provide evidence links if you need them)
You're putting words in others mouths again. I've never talked about a "no-car vision" and that's in no way what a low traffic neighbourhood is - they don't place any restrictions on ownership or use (you can still drive to any property)
I'd like to see a city that doesn't discriminate against people who either don't own cars or choose to make trips without them. I'd like to see cars used more appropriately and safely and for trips where they are really necessary. Your position seems far more ideological than mine.
Overall traffic levels have fallen, but complaints about congestion don't seem to have gone away and anecdotally (perhaps as a result of satnavs) the couple of roads I've lived on in the last decade are all now busier for more of the day than they were before. There isn't a research paper to show it but it seems very likely that part of the reason things don't feel better is because cars have got larger. Oversized SUV's are now a big part of car sales. The street is the same width but if the cars parked on either side and the two trying to pass each other are all 50cm wider than they were 10 years ago you've 'lost" 2metres of width. You're going to get a lot more standoffs (and for that matter close passes of people riding bikes), or cars mounting pavements.
As I've said before, yes, completely support 20mph limit but its' the start of slowing people down. By itself it doesn't have much effect - needs a serious effort at enforcement (which is only now starting), proper penalties and really mandatory speed limiters. It seems utterly ridiculous that society faffs around putting limiters on electric assist bikes and worries about electric micro scooters but is quite happy to let someone drive a 400hp 150mph 4 second 0-60 capable car on busy London streets (and let them keep driving it even if they've been found doing so unsafely).
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
It was implying that the opposition wasn't encumbered by that.
DJWrongspeed
radio eros
these are interesting. If you're a resident living off Railton Rd can you go down Railton Road? It's not clear from those leaflets. Can someone disabled drive down Railton Rd?
It says the trial lasts 9+mths so plenty of time to see how it works I guess.
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
Basically you can't go through those gates unless you have a disabled badge. Any place is still accessible by car, you would just have to take a longer route.
Winot
I wholeheartedley agree with your viewpoint
I can understand your frustration and annoyance at Lambeth, I really can. But is the substance of this LTN really going to make a significant difference to your life?
newbie
undisambiguated
Anecdata, I leave mastery of stats to you. Are you seriously saying that falling overall traffic, and increased use of satnavs has resulted in greater congestion and longer journey times? That's not my perception, but then I think overall speed has dropped noticeably since the 20mph limit was introduced, are you sure you'e not mixing up two separate effects? As for cabbies, well I'm not aligning myself with their interests.
No it's not, it's against the imposition of gentrification for the benefit of the current crop of insider homeowners and landlords with scant regard for others. I've explained that many times. The current discussions spring from that and the narrow range of points on the prevailing script. If you make claims, as you did, you invite discussion. I know I've come to different conclusions to you about the introduction of LTNs but that does not make me pro-car, as I've said plenty of times. I'm not suggesting expanding the road network, I've said that too.
Have you not? Apologies, I thought that was you. Your points about SUVs are similar to ones I've made. Their ridiculous size certainly affects perception of traffic, but the busyness of the streets you live on is, I'm suggesting, a good thing because traffic filters, or permeates, more efficiently since satnavs. Preventing through traffic on minor thotoughfares will reverse that.
newbie
undisambiguated
someone pointed out earlier that Blue Badges go with people not cars and there's nothing on the signs to exempt holders. I don't get how that's supposed to work?
thebackrow
Considerably more Brixton.
no, you can't go through the gate EVEN IF YOU have a disabled badge - Is my reading of the leaflet
thebackrow
Considerably more Brixton.
The use of "gentrification" as if its some kind of joker card is just....
If, as you seem to claim, satnavs have increased traffic on residential streets then surely taking it back out isn't gentrification - its just returning to the state it was previously? you're suggesting that pushing maximum traffic down every road through use of technology is desirable - well that is effectively expanding the road network .
More to the point, do you really think thats desirable? The famous research on impact of traffic is from Appleyard - and it's massively negative for community cohesion. Is a better community gentrification? Noisier more polluted streets that are less open for children to walk and play in?
Maybe your ideology isn't strictly pro-car I don't see how it's pro people or pro community and seeing it only through the lens of property values is similarly myopic. Yes, there is a need to deal with inequality and inequity of opportunity but I don't think keeping the streets busy with motor traffic is the way to get to a more equal society.
Rushy
basically a scrotum
I actually think you are out of order. You've made it quite clear that you're happy with the decision because it fits with your big picture, even though you are not local to it and probably won't have cause to use it all that often. Let people in the immediate areas have their say on the execution. Sorry but ... FFS.
Winot
I wholeheartedley agree with your viewpoint
Mate - really didn't mean to offend you - probably badly worded post on my part. I'm absolutely not trying to stop you and others having a say and as I've said I can see why you are so annoyed about Lambeth's usual crap.
I'm genuinely mystified though as to why people are getting so exercised about having to drive a different route. My post was an attempt to find out whether it was the principle you were annoyed about (not being consulted; top down decisions etc) or whether it was the practice (the day-to-day effect of the modal closure). I realise it didn't come across like that. Sorry
newbie
undisambiguated
horses and carts. Stop pretending I'm trying to promote some agenda. I'm not.
I have nothing to push, but I think it's worth trying to highlight the negative effects of what the council is seeking to impose and you're busy championing.
The LTN schemes have not been designed to move towards 'a more equal society', though they should have been. Just the opposite, they're about property owner self interest and they will further entrench inequality as a predictable consequence. If your intention really is to deal with inequality and inequity of opportunity there are an awful lot of initiatives much higher up any list of ways to achieve it.
Rushy
basically a scrotum
Mate - really didn't mean to offend you - probably badly worded post on my part. I'm absolutely not trying to stop you and others having a say and as I've said I can see why you are so annoyed about Lambeth's usual crap.
I'm genuinely mystified though as to why people are getting so exercised about having to drive a different route. My post was an attempt to find out whether it was the principle you were annoyed about (not being consulted; top down decisions etc) or whether it was the practice (the day-to-day effect of the modal closure). I realise it didn't come across like that. Sorry
You haven't offended me. I just find your approach on this particular issue annoying. I will still let you buy me a pint from time to time (we are overdue).
I've touched on the reasons way back and none are about driving different routes. I accept that inconveniencing motor traffic is the purpose, even though I now have to negotiate four lane Brixton Hill to get to the end of my own road (obviously not just going to the end of my road!).The only complaint for me personally as a motorist is being forced every time I drive from the street to use a junction which I would often avoid because I find it dangerous. But these inconveniences should be balanced by significant improvements, and they are not in this case. No possible improvement in air quality, barely any improvement in traffic movements or pedestrian /cyclist safety (and I am both far more frequently than I am a motorist). In fact I think they are potentially made worse on one end of the street.
So I can't really help you as to why folk are bothered about driving a different route. But they also deserve to be heard.
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
You are, you've been seeking to make this a debate about gentrification from the start.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
You pretend that there's no benefit to anyone except property owners. Which is rubbish.
Similar threads
