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

[newbie]

Why are you weaselling about like this? "Approaching half" very clearly means "less than half". And that's before we get down to the details; eg what does "have access to a car" mean? (eg you live in a shared house - as thousands of Londoners do - and one person in that house has a car, you are considered to have access to it, which is obviously bullshit). eg you're talking about the figures for Greater London which includes great chunks of the home counties arbitrarily lumped into the GLC 50 years ago in order to gerrymander/'create democratic' elections (because otherwise it was going to be Labour for ever), etc etc.

I said "Approaching half" because I couldn't be bothered to look it up. It's actually 54%, with households including a child 1/3 more likely.

When you get down to Lambeth car owners who actually have access to a car and want one are a small minority (for many of them it is absolutely "not what they want", it's what they have little alternative but to have if they work shifts, if their work journey is not catered for by pt, if their work requires them to have or use a car).

There are all sorts of reasons people use cars, whether or not they own them. Commuting and the school run have already been discussed, and there's plenty use car clubs and an awful lot seem to use cabs or Uber. Or delivery vans, come to that, most of us order online these days I think (I haven't looked that up either).

The question is why is this small minority of dedicated car-wanters - who you are trying to paint as the normal, majority (and - for extra absurdity - "poor" or "low income") people - prioritised above the majority?

Do you have any actual proposals, other than forcing some extra thousands of vehicles onto the high street every day while hoping some evaporate?

It's just nonsense. If you are personally in love with your car and cannot imagine life without it, fine, why not just admit it and stop this rubbish about standing up for the little guy or whatever you think you're doing. If you don't love your car or whatever, I cannot actually work out what the fuck you're on about, it's either low-grade trolling or you're a straight up idiot.

I'm challenging a badly thought out proposal that I think will do more harm than good.

Who do you think you're standing up for?

 

[Gramsci]

And your misrepresentation continues. The shops that sell cheap housewares presumably have owners who'd like to make a profit - they might do better on a nicer street - or can they only be profitable if the road remains as it is now? or are the current shops part of some communist collective? I'm confused.

Back in your post 81 you said:

. Maybe some businesses will have to 'evolve' but some of this is an opportunity.

So you do see this road closure as leading to changes in shops. "Evolve" is another word for gentrification.

I do find your comment that shops for the less well off can be dismissed as communist shows lack of understanding of the importance and need for these shops by a significant amount of local people.

 

[teuchter]

So can you explain to me why in my area Loughborough Junction poor people overwhelmingly resented and opposed a similar scheme to that being proposed in Brixton?

I sat at meetings where residents from the Council estate were shouting at Cllrs over the imposition of road closures. People I knew on estate , who can't afford a car, also opposed it.

If you care about poor people would you still impose a scheme like this this even its opposed by the people you say you care about?

I'm catching up on this thread and wanted to respond to this.

The reasons for the resistance to the LJ closures were quite complex I think.

Firstly: there was a fear about changes that are seen as leading to or enabling gentrification. To some extent I see this as a legitimate fear, and I think it's one that anyone involved in promoting such schemes needs to get to grips with and acknowledge. The fact is, making places more accessible for pedestrians and cyclists, and reducing traffic, makes those places 'nicer' (that's kind of the whole point after all) and it's true that this can lead to changes relating from a consequent increase in value of property. This is a tricky issue to deal with. One option of course is to resist the change on a 'keeping [area] crap' basis. In that case, the logic is that the people living in the area accept that they continue with air and noise pollution, road injuries and so on, in exchange for their area remaining affordable. This logic is discussed in the 'keeping Brixton Crap' thread.

Aside from the above though, there were a load of things circulating that I did not see as legitimate fears or concerns. For example, when I went to one of the crowded and tense meetings, a big issue was a fear that increased traffic on Coldharbour Lane was going to stop emergency vehicles getting to Kings Hospital on time. It's true that when the closures were put in place, there was increased traffic in various locations including Coldharbour Lane. But there were also roadworks going on in central Brixton, and it's well known that when road access is changed there will be a period of disruption but after a while people's travel habits adjust, and most of that disruption fades away. The road closure 'experiment' was shut down early, so it was not possible for this to become apparent to people.

It's worth emphasising that those closures were supposed to be experimental - they were supposed to be in place for a set period of time, after which it would be reviewed which of them were successful, and the scheme adjusted accordingly. But the experiment was never completed - it was shut down early by Lambeth buckling in the face of apparent popular opposition.

In that case I'm firmly of the opinion that at least a portion of the opposition was whipped up by people with an interest in maintaining the through routes. (It's all in the thread from the time). Going through the petition comments revealed a large number of people from Dulwich and other areas who like being able to drive through Loughborough Junction to get into town. I received various flyers through the letter box that were keen to scaremonger about stuff like emergency vehicle access. Were these flyers funded and produced by the largely non-car owning residents of the Loughborough Estate? I don't think so. There's other stuff I've heard about people in positions of power on that estate being very much pro-car and using their influence to stir up fears.

So - while I do think that people's concerns about gentrification effects have to be listened to seriously, I think it's very important to try and get an accurate measure of the full reasons people might oppose a scheme, including those which are based on misinformation, and do everything possible to convince them that certain fears are unfounded, as well as emphasising the many benefits that can be brought to them. This is what failed to happen with the LJ closures.

 

[thebackrow]

I do find your comment that shops for the less well off can be dismissed as communist shows lack of understanding of the importance and need for these shops by a significant amount of local people.

You can't take a joke can you?

It's somewhat amusing that a scheme like this gets attacked for everything.

Cutting out through traffic is terrible, the businesses won't be able to survive. Making the street more pleasant for pedestrians will bring in more customers who'll spend more money but that's a bad thing too. Evolve - yes, maybe some of those shopkeepers who've struggled for years will be able to make more money. Sod that, lets keep them on the breadline

Lowering traffic volumes and making somewhere nicer is gentrification (bad!) but increasing traffic on a street (allowing the erroneous assumption that it will all just displace and ignoring evidence that traffic reduces across the whole area) is bad too - think about the pollution!

In another thread was claimed that the Loughborough Junction scheme was bad because it was rich people from outside wanting to experiment with reducing traffic somewhere else only to immediately be claimed that this project was bad because it was rich people wanting to get the traffic out of their own area and inflicting it on the poor souls of LJ who love traffic at current levels but not a single car more.

 

[teuchter]

On the 'making nicer' = gentrification thing -

I always note that this argument is frequently used against road schemes, but not other things.

Would there be opposition to better funding to a local park, because it would make the area more desirable?

Is there opposition to better funding to local schools?

Is there opposition to better train services from, say LJ station, or to the reopening of Brixton East?

The inconsistency suggests that a significant proportion of opposition is down to those with a self interest. Making a public park better doesn't inconvenience anyone. Reducing motor traffic does inconvenience certain people: car owners. Both things could be seen as making an area more attractive and thus prone to gentrification though.

 

[newbie]

Lowering traffic volumes and making somewhere nicer is gentrification (bad!) but increasing traffic on a street (allowing the erroneous assumption that it will all just displace and ignoring evidence that traffic reduces across the whole area) is bad too - think about the pollution!

If you're so certain that concern about displacement is erroneous, perhaps you could attempt to quantify what proportion of the 6,000 vehicles per day that currently use Atlantic Road will :
a) use Coldharbour Lane
b) use the St Matthews gyratory
c) join the 25,000 per day on the section of Brixton Road between the CHL junction and the AR turn
d) use Gresham Road
e) use some other route to achieve their objective
f) evaporate

 

[teuchter]

If you're so certain that concern about displacement is erroneous, perhaps you could attempt to quantify what proportion of the 6,000 vehicles per day that currently use Atlantic Road will :
a) use Coldharbour Lane
b) use the St Matthews gyratory
c) join the 25,000 per day on the section of Brixton Road between the CHL junction and the AR turn
d) use Gresham Road
e) use some other route to achieve their objective
f) evaporate

Can you quantify any of this?

Or provide any reasons why this particular situation is unlikely to follow the general pattern observed in such schemes?

 

[newbie]

I always note that this argument is frequently used against road schemes, but not other things.

'In whose interests' is considered in all sorts of contexts, from HS2 to new developments (like the thing on Station Road), chain store takeovers, estate or arch regeneration and the market, Pop and so on. It's not just roads, whatever you may selectively note. Anywhere there are clear winners and clear losers, particularly where property or business ownership can mean substantial windfall gains. When it comes to public service investment it's sometimes called 'pork barrel' politics or 'the DUP'.

 

[newbie]

Can you quantify any of this?

Or provide any reasons why this particular situation is unlikely to follow the general pattern observed in such schemes?

Which 'such schemes'? Ones like Herne Hill where there's apparently no follow-up to show what happened to the traffic, ones like Hounslow with a measured 19% increase on the main road, or like the Mini-Hollands where there was an insignificant impact on car usage? Or 'general pattern' ones with vague but strident assertions that traffic will simply evaporate?

It's up to those proposing this scheme to do some detailed research on traffic usage patterns for both the road itself and the impacted wider area and then come up with an informed estimate. Failing that, those proponents on this thread could make some sort of guess, based on their knowledge of the roads, railways and junctions, and whatever they propose about whether the buses are to be rerouted, what arrangements are made for delivery & emergency vehicles and so on.

 

[teuchter]

'In whose interests' is considered in all sorts of contexts, from HS2 to new developments (like the thing on Station Road), chain store takeovers, estate or arch regeneration and the market, Pop and so on. It's not just roads, whatever you may selectively note. Anywhere there are clear winners and clear losers, particularly where property or business ownership can mean substantial windfall gains. When it comes to public service investment it's sometimes called 'pork barrel' politics or 'the DUP'.

I'm talking about a (perhaps hazily defined) category of things where it's fairly uncontroversial to say that they benefit most people regardless of income, property ownership status and so on. Things like parks, libraries, air quality, pedestrian access, road safety I'd put in this category.

I would not put pop brixton or arch regeneration in that category. It's not uncontroversial to claim these benefit all, as demonstrated by many threads here.

 

[teuchter]

ones like Hounslow with a measured 19% increase on the main road,

I've just had a look at the report you linked to earlier.

The road that closed - prior to closure - had 469 vehicles using it in the pm peak. The closure reduced this by 90% so a reduction of 422 vehicles achieved.

The parallel main road - after the closure - saw an increase of 120 vehicles using it in the pm peak. So 29% of the traffic appears to have been displaced to that road, with something else happening to the remaining 71%.

If 6000 vehicles/day use Atlantic Road, and a similar pattern was observed, it would mean 1740 vehicles being displaced to parallel routes. Added to the 25,000 figure you give for Brixton Road, that means an increase in the region of 7%. Not 19%.

What happened to the other 71% of vehicles that were removed by the Hounslow scheme though? Did they all 'evaporate'? Probably not, but it seems perfectly plausible that many of them did.

In that scheme, yes, another road took the hit of an increase, but the added burden on that road was much smaller than the burden removed from the closed road. The net effect for the immediate area therefore, appears to have been significant benefit.

That conforms, as far as I know, with the general pattern observed in such schemes.

And yes, I do think an extra 7% on Brixton Road would be a price worth paying, viewed in the context of a London-wide policy to reduce motor traffic, which in the longer term should see traffic everywhere including Brixton Road falling. And this proposal is part of that wider scheme.

 

[newbie]

I'm talking about a (perhaps hazily defined) category of things where it's fairly uncontroversial to say that they benefit most people regardless of income, property ownership status and so on. Things like parks, libraries, air quality, pedestrian access, road safety I'd put in this category.

I would not put pop brixton or arch regeneration in that category. It's not uncontroversial to claim these benefit all, as demonstrated by many threads here.

Have you read this thread? Closing Atlantic Road to traffic is not uncontroversial, at least sfaiac, because until detailed informed plans and estimates demonstrate otherwise I think it'll negatively impact more identifiable people than are positively affected.

 

[Winot]

Have you read this thread? Closing Atlantic Road to traffic is not uncontroversial, at least sfaiac, because until detailed informed plans and estimates demonstrate otherwise I think it'll negatively impact more identifiable people than are positively affected.

Did you read Teuchter’s last post? I doubt it is possible to convince you however because there will always be another piece of data you will demand to see. It’s called ‘sea lioning’ and it’s a tactic you have used before on threads about traffic reduction.

 

[newbie]

I've just had a look at the report you linked to earlier.

The road that closed - prior to closure - had 469 vehicles using it in the pm peak. The closure reduced this by 90% so a reduction of 422 vehicles achieved.

The parallel main road - after the closure - saw an increase of 120 vehicles using it in the pm peak. So 29% of the traffic appears to have been displaced to that road, with something else happening to the remaining 71%.

If 6000 vehicles/day use Atlantic Road, and a similar pattern was observed, it would mean 1740 vehicles being displaced to parallel routes. Added to the 25,000 figure you give for Brixton Road, that means an increase in the region of 7%. Not 19%.

What happened to the other 71% of vehicles that were removed by the Hounslow scheme though? Did they all 'evaporate'? Probably not, but it seems perfectly plausible that many of them did.

In that scheme, yes, another road took the hit of an increase, but the added burden on that road was much smaller than the burden removed from the closed road. The net effect for the immediate area therefore, appears to have been significant benefit.

That conforms, as far as I know, with the general pattern observed in such schemes.

I don't know enough (anything) about Hounslow to comment, but your numbers, come on, ignoring the 71% you can't account for in order to prove your 'general pattern' is not convincing. Some small percentage of journeys will evaporate, for sure, most won't they'll displace somewhere else. That's pretty much it, isn't it?

I know a bit more about local conditions. There is no 'parallel route', if there was we might not be discussing this. I mean, let's be honest, the traffic in Brixton centre has been intractable for a very long time, if there was a simple solution it would have been implemented. The complementary scheme, to close the top of CHL and route all the traffic along AR has been proposed in the past, as has this closure. There are only so many possible alternative routes, none of them attractive- that's why no-one on this thread has actually said what they expect to happen in any detail.

And yes, I do think an extra 7% on Brixton Road would be a price worth paying, viewed in the context of a London-wide policy to reduce motor traffic, which in the longer term should see traffic everywhere including Brixton Road falling. And this proposal is part of that wider scheme.

So this scheme has suddenly become contingent on a previously unmentioned (in this context) London-wide policy? That's because it doesn't stand up on its own. So lets do the London wide traffic reduction and then, and only then, start wondering if the improved conditions in Brixton need further attention.

I've already said I think the Green Light report makes sense. It needs more discussion in its own right but from my perspective it's a reasonable starting point and could, if tweaked a bit, significantly reduce traffic across Greater London to widespread benefit and with, I'd hope, not too much negative social impact. Obviously it's a far reaching proposal and public debate will include all sorts of the people you demonise, so it may prove to be politically unattainable.

If everyone on this thread who's so keen on increasing the burden on Brixton Road was to concentrate on that we could all move in something approaching the same direction. Until then I'll keep reminding them of the little girl who lived on a main road and died of asthma. I don't really get why you're so sanguine about negative impacts on so many people to suit your own agenda. A 27% increase in the time a bus takes doesn't sound important if its not you sitting on that bus twice a day.

 

[newbie]

Did you read Teuchter’s last post? I doubt it is possible to convince you however because there will always be another piece of data you will demand to see. It’s called ‘sea lioning’ and it’s a tactic you have used before on threads about traffic reduction.

I've just replied to it. Nobody has said anything about this specific proposal that makes me think there's a good case for closing Atlantic Road.

 

[teuchter]

So this scheme has suddenly become contingent on a previously unmentioned (in this context) London-wide policy? That's because it doesn't stand up on its own. So lets do the London wide traffic reduction and then, and only then, start wondering if the improved conditions in Brixton need further attention.

??

This is part of the London wide Liveable Neighbourhoods scheme, enacted by TfL as part of its Londonwide transport strategy.

Liveable Neighbourhoods


I'll have to come back to other points later.

 

[Gramsci]

I'm catching up on this thread and wanted to respond to this.

The reasons for the resistance to the LJ closures were quite complex I think.


So - while I do think that people's concerns about gentrification effects have to be listened to seriously, I think it's very important to try and get an accurate measure of the full reasons people might oppose a scheme, including those which are based on misinformation, and do everything possible to convince them that certain fears are unfounded, as well as emphasising the many benefits that can be brought to them. This is what failed to happen with the LJ closures.

I think you make fair points.

I didn't really want to get into all the ins and outs of the LJ debacle.

My question in original post was whether a scheme like this should be imposed from above if majority oppose it.

In LJ I would say the road closure scheme wasn't popular.

The argument for it was lost. This is democracy.

So my unanswered question still stands. Should this be imposed on people from above because it's a good thing for environment?

Example is Oxford Street. Mayor wanted to pedestrianise it.

This had a lot of opposition from locals. In council elections they put up own candidates. They did so well it meant Westminster council withdrew backing from scheme.

( To add. Oxford Street area is combination of expensive housing and social housing)

Enter XR Rebellion. They effectively closed down Oxford Street using direct action.

As a cyclist I have thought it was great.

XR want to use direct civil disobedience to force democracy to standstill. To be replaced by state of emergency to move to zero carbon by 2025.

"Beyond politics" as XR posters said. Argument is the planet hasn't time for years of democratic persuasion. That elected officials are liable to be swayed by public opinion.

I think there is a debate to be had whether messy democracy, which can be swayed by non rational feelings, is better than a hard headed top down imposition from above of environment friendly policies which are scientifically proven (XR leaders view). Which in long run will help to save the planet and eventually ordinary people will see benefit from.


There is an argument for pressing on with road closures anyway without local support.

 

[Gramsci]

A few comments.

My irritation with this scheme is that it appears no on who actually lives or works in the proposed liveable neighborhood was asked about it.

Its like I said at recent meeting why not alterative plans to choose from?

When CHL was closed from Dogstar to Ritzy due to crane for several weeks people I know who worked/ lived there liked it.

If idea is to make Brixton liveable neighborhood how about options?

Such as close off top end of CHL?

This makes more sense than closing Atlantic road.

More of housing is in this part. Vining street, Rushcroft road and Clifton mansions.

It liveable neighborhood is the aim makes more sense.

Railton road is a rat run now. Cars use it to bypass the St Matthews junction. I've heard complaints from those who live near it. Stopping cars going by Brockwell park and turning into Railton road is easy to do. They turn into Railton road, speed, go down Atlantic road then turn right onto Brixton road.

 

[toblerone3]

Which 'such schemes'? Ones like Herne Hill where there's apparently no follow-up to show what happened to the traffic, ones like Hounslow with a measured 19% increase on the main road, or like the Mini-Hollands where there was an insignificant impact on car usage? Or 'general pattern' ones with vague but strident assertions that traffic will simply evaporate?

It's up to those proposing this scheme to do some detailed research on traffic usage patterns for both the road itself and the impacted wider area and then come up with an informed estimate. Failing that, those proponents on this thread could make some sort of guess, based on their knowledge of the roads, railways and junctions, and whatever they propose about whether the buses are to be rerouted, what arrangements are made for delivery & emergency vehicles and so on.

There is always going to be follow up monitoring its a condition of the money being released for the scheme. Informed estimates on likely impacts that will be done when the scheme is designed. That is what modelling is. At the moment the scheme can be very substantially changed from resident feedback. If there any areas where there are negative impacts, TfL will insist that there are mitigation measures. Delivery vehicles, emergency vehicles this is all part of the scheme delivery. If you fear traffic displacement on a particular route you can make sure that that particular road is included in the scheme modelling and that mitigations are considered at an early stage for that road.

 

[Gramsci]

On the 'making nicer' = gentrification thing -

I always note that this argument is frequently used against road schemes, but not other things.

Would there be opposition to better funding to a local park, because it would make the area more desirable?

Is there opposition to better funding to local schools?

Is there opposition to better train services from, say LJ station, or to the reopening of Brixton East?

The inconsistency suggests that a significant proportion of opposition is down to those with a self interest. Making a public park better doesn't inconvenience anyone. Reducing motor traffic does inconvenience certain people: car owners. Both things could be seen as making an area more attractive and thus prone to gentrification though.

As part of the Loughborough Junction road closures the Council organised an event to turn the that area into park/ playspace.

Such was the opposition to the road closures by people on Loughborough estate no one turned up.

I saw this.

More recently at a local meeting in Loughborough Junction after the tragic murder of a local youth , a packed meeting of people on the estate, they were clear what they wanted.

The following:

Community policing ( answer by top cop at meeting cuts made this impossible).

They wanted funding for youth services that had been cut re instated ( Answer by MP Helen Hayes and leader of Council Hopkins - government "austerity" cuts made this very difficult.)

They wanted proper employment/ training opportunities for local youth.

They wanted an end to school exclusions. Which disproportionately affected black and working class children.

These are same people opposing what they saw as middle class road closures to make LJ a destination for , in their view, the middle class.

In a solidly working class area like north side of LJ they have plenty of alternative ideas to improve the area they live in.

Its that , unless a murder happens, they aren't asked for their opinion. Instead they get told tarting the area up with road closures is what the area needs.

No wonder they reject it.

 

[Gramsci]

There is always going to be follow up monitoring its a condition of the money being released for the scheme. Informed estimates on likely impacts that will be done when the scheme is designed. That is what modelling is. At the moment the scheme can be very substantially changed from resident feedback. If there any areas where there are negative impacts, TfL will insist that there are mitigation measures. Delivery vehicles, emergency vehicles this is all part of the scheme delivery. If you fear traffic displacement on a particular route you can make sure that that particular road is included in the scheme modelling and that mitigations are considered at an early stage for that road.

The scheme can be substantially altered by residents feedback?

When I mentioned in a meeting why not give people alternatives like close off part of Brixton bit of CHL,As previous post of mine said, it was almost like no one had thought of idea of giving Brixtonites alternative options to look at.

I'm really surprised that project that is , supposedly, rooted in involving the community ( see the livable neighborhood pdf) does not give people different options.

Through local press business and locals like me have been told Atlantic road is being closed.

Nothing about being able to substantially alter this project. That's news to me.

 

[toblerone3]

The scheme can be substantially altered by residents feedback?

When I mentioned in a meeting why not give people alternatives like close off part of Brixton bit of CHL,As previous post of mine said, it was almost like no one had thought of idea of giving Brixtonites alternative options to look at.

I'm really surprised that project that is , supposedly, rooted in involving the community ( see the livable neighborhood pdf) does not give people different options.

Through local press business and locals like me have been told Atlantic road is being closed.

Nothing about being able to substantially alter this project. That's news to me.

You are free to block the project, you are free to substantially alter it. Any alterations you make will naturally be subject to a degree of scrutiny about their likely effects. The reason you have not been given option A, option B, Option C etc is probably that quite a lot of thought has already been given to these options and their likely drawbacks, but you are still able to propose them and, if well argued, they might be accepted. If you don't offer any good alternatives and just block the project the money will simply be reallocated to a different part of London and Brixton will (in my opinion) lose out yet again.

 

[newbie]

Such as close off top end of CHL?

This makes more sense than closing Atlantic road.

More of housing is in this part. Vining street, Rushcroft road and Clifton mansions.

It liveable neighborhood is the aim makes more sense.

Railton road is a rat run now. Cars use it to bypass the St Matthews junction. I've heard complaints from those who live near it. Stopping cars going by Brockwell park and turning into Railton road is easy to do. They turn into Railton road, speed, go down Atlantic road then turn right onto Brixton road.

Aye, and there's more evidence that closing that section of CHL will deliver benefit than closing AR, which is not so polluted as well as less residential.



That's showing nitrogen dioxide pollution, but other indicators are similar. Closing CHL doesn't, however, neatly link the active travel routes they're proposing, so isn't so clear on the map. But there's no real reason why walkers and cyclists on the Railton to Ferndale route shouldn't be directed along CHL and via the high street, after all adding to existing congestion there is unproblematic (or so I've been told) and they'll go wherever they please anyway.

I'm feeling a bit cynical this morning, but following the logic of people on this thread, it appears that road closures are always good, and that the traffic that clogs more minor through routes like AR or CHL will simply evaporate, so why not close both? That would make central Brixton much nicer!

 

[newbie]

??

This is part of the London wide Liveable Neighbourhoods scheme, enacted by TfL as part of its Londonwide transport strategy.

Liveable Neighbourhoods


I'll have to come back to other points later.

The specific scheme to transform Atlantic Road is at the heart of the Brixton scheme, which the ambition for low traffic neighbourhoods is reliant on. Not the other way round. There's no mention that this project depends on other schemes, it's presented as standalone, although you implied dependence when you said "I do think an extra 7% on Brixton Road would be a price worth paying, viewed in the context of a London-wide policy to reduce motor traffic".

That's what I meant, I'm sorry if it wasn't clear.

 

[teuchter]

The specific scheme to transform Atlantic Road is at the heart of the Brixton scheme, which the ambition for low traffic neighbourhoods is reliant on. Not the other way round. There's no mention that this project depends on other schemes, it's presented as standalone, although you implied dependence when you said "I do think an extra 7% on Brixton Road would be a price worth paying, viewed in the context of a London-wide policy to reduce motor traffic".

That's what I meant, I'm sorry if it wasn't clear.

It's still not clear what you mean.

It's not standalone. It's part of the Londonwide Liveable Neighbourhoods scheme. That's why it's called "Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood". That's why it's funded by TfL, the London-wide body responsible for implementing the Mayor's transport strategy. That's what the L in TfL stands for.

This is a summary of the Mayor's Transport Strategy:

About the strategy
Transport has the potential to shape London, from the streets Londoners live, work and spend time on, to the Tube, rail and bus services they use every day.

By using the Healthy Streets Approach to prioritise human health and experience in planning the city, the Mayor wants to change London’s transport mix so the city works better for everyone.

Three key themes are at the heart of the strategy.

1. Healthy Streets and healthy people
Creating streets and street networks that encourage walking, cycling and public transport use will reduce car dependency and the health problems it creates.

2. A good public transport experience
Public transport is the most efficient way for people to travel over distances that are too long to walk or cycle, and a shift from private car to public transport could dramatically reduce the number of vehicles on London’s streets.

3. New homes and jobs
More people than ever want to live and work in London. Planning the city around walking, cycling and public transport use will unlock growth in new areas and ensure that London grows in a way that benefits everyone.

Read the evidence behind the strategy on TfL's Mayor’s Transport Strategy page.

If more and more neighbourhoods throughout London implement these small scale changes, then more and more benefit is seen Londonwide. Because London as a whole becomes somewhere where it's less attractive to get around by driving, and where using other modes becomes more attractive.

 

[newbie]

It's still not clear what you mean.

It's not standalone. It's part of the Londonwide Liveable Neighbourhoods scheme. That's why it's called "Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood". That's why it's funded by TfL, the London-wide body responsible for implementing the Mayor's transport strategy. That's what the L in TfL stands for.

This is a summary of the Mayor's Transport Strategy:



If more and more neighbourhoods throughout London implement these small scale changes, then more and more benefit is seen Londonwide. Because London as a whole becomes somewhere where it's less attractive to get around by driving, and where using other modes becomes more attractive.

It's standalone in the sense that the overall strategy does not specifically depend on it. Also in the sense that there's no suggestion that this scheme depends on another elsewhere, Camberwell say, or Kennington, Streatham, wherever. We're warned that the funding can be withdrawn and used elsewhere, so it's obviously standalone.

The consequences of the overall strategy will become apparent as it's rolled out. I hope your assumption of pure benefit with no hint of downside proves correct.

 

[teuchter]

It's standalone in the sense that the overall strategy does not specifically depend on it. Also in the sense that there's no suggestion that this scheme depends on another elsewhere, Camberwell say, or Kennington, Streatham, wherever. We're warned that the funding can be withdrawn and used elsewhere, so it's obviously standalone.

The consequences of the overall strategy will become apparent as it's rolled out. I hope your assumption of pure benefit with no hint of downside proves correct.

The overall strategy absolutely depends on these schemes being implemented throughout London. It's like saying that a nationwide vaccination scheme doesn't specifically depend on your doctor implementing it so why should they bother. Except that this scheme brings local benefits as well as greater-good benefits.

At no point have I talked about 'pure benefits' or 'no downside'. I've mentioned 'net benefit'.

 

[newbie]

this scheme brings local benefits as well as greater-good benefits.

At no point have I talked about 'pure benefits' or 'no downside'. I've mentioned 'net benefit'.

What you said, in the post I quoted and replied to, was "If more and more neighbourhoods throughout London implement these small scale changes, then more and more benefit is seen Londonwide." No mention of downside there, or in this latest post where you say "this scheme brings local benefits as well as greater-good benefits" with absolutely zero recognition that there could be any possible negative consequences.

You and others appear to me to be arguing that any and all proposals to close roads are a good thing that will automatically and without question produce benefit. If that is not your position then you need to nuance your posts better, honestly acknowledge and examine potential problems, and seek to work out ways to ameliorate them. If it is, then I can only assume you'll pick up and run with my proposal to close both Atlantic Road and Coldharbour Lane, because that must produce twice the benefit, no?

 

[newbie]

The overall strategy absolutely depends on these schemes being implemented throughout London. It's like saying that a nationwide vaccination scheme doesn't specifically depend on your doctor implementing it so why should they bother.

If the money is withdrawn from Brixton and spent in, say, Streatham the overall strategy will continue substantially unaffected. Your analogy doesn't work.

 

[thebackrow]

or like the Mini-Hollands where there was an insignificant impact on car usage

“Insignificant”. The figures from the first scheme in Walthamstow - the Village - saw a 50% reduction in traffic in the Village itself and a 15% reduction across the wider area. Some main roads went up slightly but the following year was seeing them falling back down. They’re continuing to expand the area and address areas where new issues have emerged.

My irritation with this scheme is that it appears no on who actually lives or works in the proposed liveable neighborhood was asked about it.

There’s a consultation now. You’re being asked now. There was no funding before. There have been loads of central brixton consultations before (which included closing AR - for which there was support as I understood at the time) which were unfunded. As someone who participated in those, being asked what we wanted only for it to go nowhere was pretty demotivating. This scheme has proper funding. It’s incredibly common for those who fight against schemes to complain that they haven’t been consulted (*while they are being consulted*). For New Park Road people were complaining the council hadn’t told them about the scheme when there had been a mail shot to all houses - “oh, but I didn’t read that - I throw away anything that’s from the council”.

following the logic of people on this thread, it appears that road closures are always good, and that the traffic that clogs more minor through routes like AR or CHL will simply evaporate, so why not close both? That would make central Brixton much nicer!

Pretty much. If you want to reduce traffic london-wide you need to reduce capacity and make the city less porous to motor vehicles. I’d go with closing both if it could be made to work. I’d not be surprised if CHL is closed at some point in the future. Cardiff City centre has a very large pedestrianised area now as an example that works really well. I’m sure it didn’t all happen at once and I’m sure it was massively controversial at the time it was done. It’s one of the nicest city shopping areas i know of now. Not much parking in town. Lots of park and ride.

It's standalone in the sense that the overall strategy does not specifically depend on it. Also in the sense that there's no suggestion that this scheme depends on another elsewhere

Making everything contingent on something else guarantees no change as nothing can happen first, everything has to stop if one part of a scheme runs into trouble. That’s how Westminster were able to kill the CS11 cycle scheme north of regent street.