Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

The Ferndale scheme may have it merits. Looking at the commonplace comments looks like a lot of rat runs that people dont like. So support some of the scheme and want it extended to deal with rat runs in residential areas.

Other comments is that if one lives in the Ferndale LN its going to long winded routes to get in and out.

Also the ( imo reasonable comments) that LN will push traffic onto what TFL/ Council define as main roads. So people on those roads will get more. As is the case with me.

Council are using the pandemic to push through the Liveable Neighbourhood scheme with minimal consultation.

That may be fine with those who support this scheme.

I don't think it is.

Cllrs twitter is going on about how great this all is. Yes it is. Finally Cllrs can get their pet schemes rolled out without having to deal with pesky voters. They are loving it.

Labour Cllrs ( the present lot) find dealing with the voters on a regular basis distasteful. Im afraid the pandemic is giving them feeling they should have free hand between elections.
 
Looking at the Ferndale commonplace lots of coments on the Refill 24 hour takeaway in Ferndale road.

So some of these issues are around traffic and disturbance around certain businesses.

Cars with engines running etc at all hours. General disturbance for residents.

Idea of Liveable Neighbouurhood needs to address these issues that are not just about rat runs / speeding etc.

Apart from rat runs how is Council going to deal with issues like this?

They are valid comments given that Council are saying the want to create Liveable Neighbourhoods.

If residents are going to feel they can buy into a scheme the Council has imposed on them with no consultation I hope Cllrs deal with issues raised.
 
Last edited:
Even though not all the cameras are installed and there needs to better signage, Railton Road is a lot quieter. Done a lot of school runs (walking) in the past few weeks and Dulwich Road and brixton water lane are a lot busier during the day. So traffic does appear to be shifting to main roads, not convinced that there are fewer journeys being taken but it’s early days.
 
I notice that I am regularly having to drive the Poets Corner roads for access which I never did before. Well, not regularly, but whenever I need access.

I cycled from Brixton to Herne Hill the other day about 10ish and stuck to Dulwich Road out of habit on the way there. It was quiet as. On the way back I took Railton LTN and was sandwiched between two cars driving in front and behind me through the modal filter down near Kellett end.
 
teuchter said:
But there's also the psychology thing where people are more likely to drive dangerously in areas which aren't also their home & immediate neighbourhood. I think that's part of the idea of LNs - by definition most of the traffic within them will be to or from local destinations.
Click to expand...
Where does this "psychology thing" come from? Is is just assumption or theory? I ask as whilst walking to Sainsbury's yesterday I saw two cars separately pull out from parking and floor it to the end of the street (still about 200-250m straight stretch). Not the first time I've seen it since through traffic was excluded. I'm really doubtful about any assumption about people not wishing to shit on their own doorsteps!
 
I see/hear plenty of people floor it for the 70m from my house to the end of the street where it meets the main road. I live on a cul-de-sac. I'm sure there's someting to the psychology thing, but I think some pople just don't give a fuck and find driving fast a recreational activity, regardless of where they are.
 
Crispy said:
I see/hear plenty of people floor it for the 70m from my house to the end of the street where it meets the main road. I live on a cul-de-sac. I'm sure there's someting to the psychology thing, but I think some pople just don't give a fuck and find driving fast a recreational activity, regardless of where they are.
Click to expand...
At the risk of demanding surveillance from The Man, the amount of clowns who hurtle along Coldharbour Lane in speeds waaaay in excess of 20mph is alarming. If I was in control of things, spikes would come up from the ground and trash any car travelling at dangerous speeds.
 
Rushy said:
Where does this "psychology thing" come from? Is is just assumption or theory? I ask as whilst walking to Sainsbury's yesterday I saw two cars separately pull out from parking and floor it to the end of the street (still about 200-250m straight stretch). Not the first time I've seen it since through traffic was excluded. I'm really doubtful about any assumption about people not wishing to shit on their own doorsteps!
Click to expand...
It may be an assumption, or received wisdom. I can't immediately find anything that backs it up.
 
Rushy said:
Or largely just bollocks?

ETA I don't mean that to sound quite so antagonistic. A convenient myth perhaps?
Click to expand...
Well - I'd say it has plausibility in its merit at least.

I don't know if there's anything that's looked at whether this has a measurable effect on driver behaviour.

However, there is quite a lot of stuff (some of which is controversial I know) on this general theme, in sociology/urban design... how people's behaviour changes if they feel the street is "theirs" or overlooked by people living on it and so on. I think it's something Jane Jacobs wrote a lot about, and it's partly where the "broken windows" type theories came from.

A lot of that is often discussed in relation to policing - the argument being that instead of having heavy-handed policing you create an environment where motivations for anti social behaviour are removed, or where deterrents exist that don't rely on formal policing.

I don't think it's far fetched to extend that thinking to things that may influence driver behaviour.

I'm straying slightly from the original point, but if a "livable neighbourhood" scheme works well, then you ought to see residents starting to use the streets differently - more people on them, more people on bikes, more kids around perhaps. And those things do affect how people percieve the space and (hopefully) drive through it.
 
teuchter said:
if a "livable neighbourhood" scheme works well, then you ought to see residents starting to use the streets differently - more people on them, more people on bikes, more kids around perhaps. And those things do affect how people percieve the space and (hopefully) drive through it.
Click to expand...

Don't forget to mention that the script promises evaporating journeys as well as frolicking children. So 'works well' is also designed to lead to a rise in driver frustration at being forced onto already choked main routes and through pinchpoints. That's how evaporation is to be achieved. Maybe I'm also guilty of looking for confirmation bias, but my spidey senses tell me frustration is starting to rise. Let's hope it settles down before all the new happy cyclists and walkers discover what winter means to active travel and we really start to see the effects.

Observing how people have been using car free/reduced space through post-lockdown has been one life's little pleasures. I'm not sure 0-70 takeoff in newly created cul-de-sacs was in the brochure though, was it? Nor was using cyclists and kids as traffic calming measures.
 
The detail of the Ferndale scheme emphasises that the design is intended to upset car using insiders, rather than keep them onside. That theme perhaps emerged in the Railton discussions but is more plain here (and will be again if the Leander/ Elm Park one goes ahead).

Having to turn left from Sandmere Rd may improve flow for outsiders on Bedford Rd but I'd be pretty miffed if every time I wanted to go to Clapham I had to go some ridiculously long way round and then have to return via Acre Lane only. Same with Trinity Gardens, with a choice of an awkward dogleg across Acre Lane into the previously pedestrian friendly route through the Town Hall complex or all the way round St Matthews. I mean, yes it's Clapham, but people still want to go there and it's been simple until now.

Being expected to drive or Uber from the Acre Lane side of the railway divide to the physio in Pulross via central Brixton or Landor Road seems even more punitive.

Meanwhile, I hadn't appreciated that the westbound Ferndale rat run would remain open, but with less turning or opposing traffic. Complaints about increased average/peak speed & decreased cyclist/pedestrian comfort won't be a surprise, will they?

I don't know how much school run there has previously been within those few streets but looking at Google maps it's a 4 minute car journey from Sandmere Rd to Stockwell primary, increasing to 10 if forced through central Brixton. So that traffic should be sufficiently frustrated to obediently evaporate, but only if the adults take to the active travel alternative, which looks to be walking or cycling children along Ferndale and under the bridges before looping round onto Stockwell Road. Walking 13 minutes each way, there and back twice a day is good for them, though less on streets with traffic. Improved health stats are an expected benefit. That's not necessarily the same as popular, though, so especially when it's raining some very local school run traffic is sure to unwillingly end up in central Brixton, isn't it?

Those currently more active insiders who don't use a car will hopefully benefit but I can't see car users being too happy.






<journey times are now, Saturday morning. If I remember I'll do it again at school run time>
 
on a strictly personal note (having read some but not all of the thread):
came across the oval traingle today for the first time.
Sum total: another 3 miles of driving to get around the restrictions now in place, all of this spewing extra fumes as it was all around the triangle and sitting in heavy traffic around it (and that did also include venturing within to find the extent of these)
 
wemakeyousoundb said:
on a strictly personal note (having read some but not all of the thread):
came across the oval traingle today for the first time.
Sum total: another 3 miles of driving to get around the restrictions now in place, all of this spewing extra fumes as it was all around the triangle and sitting in heavy traffic around it (and that did also include venturing within to find the extent of these)
Click to expand...

An electric car could help with the extra fumes bit.
 
teuchter said:
Well - I'd say it has plausibility in its merit at least.

I don't know if there's anything that's looked at whether this has a measurable effect on driver behaviour.

However, there is quite a lot of stuff (some of which is controversial I know) on this general theme, in sociology/urban design... how people's behaviour changes if they feel the street is "theirs" or overlooked by people living on it and so on. I think it's something Jane Jacobs wrote a lot about, and it's partly where the "broken windows" type theories came from.

A lot of that is often discussed in relation to policing - the argument being that instead of having heavy-handed policing you create an environment where motivations for anti social behaviour are removed, or where deterrents exist that don't rely on formal policing.

I don't think it's far fetched to extend that thinking to things that may influence driver behaviour.

I'm straying slightly from the original point, but if a "livable neighbourhood" scheme works well, then you ought to see residents starting to use the streets differently - more people on them, more people on bikes, more kids around perhaps. And those things do affect how people percieve the space and (hopefully) drive through it.
Click to expand...


I've been reading Vitale End of Policing.

www.versobooks.com

The End of Policing

The massive uprising following the police killing of George Floyd in the summer of 2020--by some estimates the largest protests in US history--thrust the argument to defund the police to the forefront of international politics. It also made The End of Policing a bestseller and Alex Vitale, its...
www.versobooks.com www.versobooks.com

Its mainly about USA policing. Which is where the "Broken Windows" came in.

In short the criticism of broken windows policing is that it turned the usual critique on its head ( as Vitale puts it). Instead of increasing inequality making low level crime worse it was the low level anti social behaviour/ petty crime making neighbourhoods worse.

So the answer was fixing "broken window" not inequality.

This fiitted in perfectly with the growing acceptance as Neo Liberalism as the norm.
 
Last edited:
Now some of the signs are up the new comments on the Ferndale scheme make interesting reading :)

this one struck me, because it proposes something that the great minds who hatched these schemes obviously considered and discounted, but which might stop most of the complaints.
I have lived on Solon new road for over 30 years and this scheme will effectively make my journey to and from my home a nightmare. I have tested it today on the school run from Brixton and a normal 8min journey turned into 30mins. This is unreasonable.
No consultation was received prior to the letter dated Monday 13th July and i find it disgusting to use coronavirus as a reason to force through this measure without community consultation. I can't even imagine how delivery drivers will feel when we will be effectively closed off.
At the very least if this measure must go through, residents should be given due consideration. Why not introduce some sort of free pass where residents can register their vehicles to avoid camera enforcement tickets so that we can get to and from our homes easily while restricting those who do not live in the area from passing through. This is a win win for everyone.

Please reconsider the scheme because this will be a huge problem for everyone in the area.
2 people agree with this comment.
Click to expand...

A win win? The parking permit system has vehicle details so camera controlled resident only access might not be too hard to implement*. Would that be seen as a win or a defeat for the scheme?

Should allowing insiders special legal privileges be seen as strengthening the scheme concept and deliverability by reducing displaced local traffic and increasing insider popularity? Or does that water it down too much, rendering it ineffective because it won't reduce internal traffic much and doesn't challenge the behaviour of insiders, so will deliver fewer health benefits?

Another way of framing the question might be
is it better to say "it's about reducing rat running without causing pointless displacement through improving towards a happy, cohesive neighbourhood. It's a shame there aren't many frolicking kids"
or
"they weren't asked about it but make them suffer anyway because it's good for them"


I have a lot of sympathy for those directly affected, but I'd ask why someone who lives on Solon should be allowed through specific No Motor Vehicle signs but not someone who lives the other side of Acre Lane.


* in retrospect and having thought about Lambeth council parking department, maybe that's a step too far
 
Last edited:
School run traffic is a fairly significant contributor to congestion. I wonder if there are reasons why the complainant cannot take/send their kids to school on the bus? I wonder how other people on Solon Road, or nearby, who don't own cars take their kids to school.
 
teuchter said:
School run traffic is a fairly significant contributor to congestion. I wonder if there are reasons why the complainant cannot take/send their kids to school on the bus? I wonder how other people on Solon Road, or nearby, who don't own cars take their kids to school.
Click to expand...
Well yes, I too can wonder about bus or more likely busses and why they might choose to drive, but doing so doesn't much clarify anything I've asked about.
 
I thought that part of the plan was to encourage those living within the LTN to consider alternative forms of getting around eg walking, cycling, public transport or combination, as with less traffic it should be more appealing to do these. If it was me I'd seriously consider swapping my 30 minute car journey for walking. If it was only an 8 minute drive before (during school run hours), it can't be that far. Of course I don't know the circumstances of this person and there might be good reason why this isn't possible
 
newbie said:
Well yes, I too can wonder about bus or more likely busses and why they might choose to drive, but doing so doesn't much clarify anything I've asked about.
Click to expand...
In my opinion, a scheme without this concession to car owning residents would be better than one with it, but a scheme with this concession would be better than nothing. I wouldn't call it a 'win-win' as it would still be a 'lose' to some extent for the non car owning residents, who I don't suppose the person writing the comment took into account in their 'everyone wins' calculation.
 
teuchter said:
In my opinion, a scheme without this concession to car owning residents would be better than one with it, but a scheme with this concession would be better than nothing. I wouldn't call it a 'win-win' as it would still be a 'lose' to some extent for the non car owning residents, who I don't suppose the person writing the comment took into account in their 'everyone wins' calculation.
Click to expand...
yes, and the kiddies can't play in the street, cyclists can't relax, pedestrians will still see cars and health outcome expectations won't be met. The same idea has been proposed for Railton (the timeline view is more useful than the default map view) as the pro and con arguments develop.

These are all local streets used by mostly local people, what's the 'better than nothing' justification to those who live the other side of Acre Lane and whose previous route has been deemed rat run from which they're now excluded?
 
newbie said:
yes, and the kiddies can't play in the street, cyclists can't relax, pedestrians will still see cars and health outcome expectations won't be met. The same idea has been proposed for Railton (the timeline view is more useful than the default map view) as the pro and con arguments develop.

These are all local streets used by mostly local people, what's the 'better than nothing' justification to those who live the other side of Acre Lane and whose previous route has been deemed rat run from which they're now excluded?
Click to expand...
The justification would rely largely on the bigger picture - that these kinds of measures being gradually adopted across London are part of a strategy to encourage less driving in general.

But why do we keep talking about everything from the point of view of car-owning residents, either within the LN zone or in adjacent neighbourhoods? For a non car-owner in an adjacent neighbourhood, their car owning neighbour's rat run route now being blocked is not an issue. If their car owning neighbour uses their car for fewer journeys as a result then that's a benefit for them. And a non car owner on the "other side of Acre Lane" might well be one of the people who currently walks or cycles through the Ferndale area, and whose journey will hopefully be improved as a result of there being less traffic in that area.

Anyway, it seems that we actually agree that giving exemptions to residents within the zones is not a "win-win" solution and I would argue against it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

editor
Cyclist killed in Brixton
2
Replies
32
Views
1K
T & P
T & P
blameless77
After work pint in Brixton?
Replies
12
Views
744
editor
editor
editor
It's a grim Christmas around Brixton: no lights, no tree and no funfair
Replies
1
Views
730
skyscraper101
skyscraper101
editor
Coronation (and anti Coronation events this weekend in and around Brixton
Replies
5
Views
795
Gramsci
Gramsci
editor
Homophobia in Brixton
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
Tulster218
T
Back
Top Bottom