Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

teuchter said:
I don't think it was Lambeth's Transport Strategy to introduce a global pandemic that's caused a sudden change in travel patterns and made many people fearful of travelling on public transport.
Click to expand...

Does this not imply that Lambeth Transport Strategy is now out of date?

Unless the pandemic ends soon and the economy reverts to normal the LTS should be reviewed?
 
teuchter said:
No-one claimed the Moorlands estate was inside the LTN. The diagram was quite clear: the blue line defined the edge of the LTN and the moorlands estate was drawn outside of that line. Look at the equivalent Oval Triangle diagram - there are also social housing estates, outside the LTN, shown on that one.

As I understand it, the social housing estates outside of the LTNs were there as an illustration that, contrary to some claims, the pattern is not that the main roads are lined with social housing while the streets interior to the LTNs are exclusively private housing.
The Moorlands Estate does border onto Colharbour Lane (and Coldharbour Lane is one of the roads that may see displaced traffic). But if you look at the diagram it shows that the majority of the Moorlands Estate does not face CHL at all. In fact it's shielded from CHL by the barrier block which as we all know was built in anticipation of a major ring road being built along the line of CHL.

The diagrams are being wilfully misread. I can see that a passing glance might conclude that there's a claim that Moorlands is somehow inside the zone. But look at them properly and you can see that there was no intention to suggest that.
Click to expand...

Including local social housing estates that are not part of the LTN was wilfull misuse by Lambeth Cyclists. Take them out and the Railton LTN picture is very different.

As nearby Council tenant and cyclist it really irritated me.

Its only that I live nearby that I saw that. Anyone else not from area having a quick look on social media would not see it.

It was deliberate.
 
Gramsci said:
Including local social housing estates that are not part of the LTN was wilfull misuse by Lambeth Cyclists. Take them out and the Railton LTN picture is very different.

As nearby Council tenant and cyclist it really irritated me.
Click to expand...
I don't think you've read my post.
 
It's problematic that the attempt to get more people onto public transport comes at a time when people have real health fears about doing so and when fares are being introduced for young people and restricted travel for pensioners - joined up thinking and all that.
 
As someone who is out on the road all day traffic has increased outside congestion zone.

The congestion zone was established to discourage cars to go to central London.

Central London is now quite empty.

Economic activity transport wise is taking place outside the main previously congested area. Possibly.

So imo a lot of new research needs to be done to see what is happening.

Lots of new cycle lane in the City that are largely redudant as there is no traffic in City for example. They were based, along with pavement widening , the idea that workers would return to City. This is not happening. Some big companies like PWC ( Charing Cross area) are now saying home working is here to stay.

Move to homeworking will be a disaster for the workers who serviced the City.

There is still lot of traffic going straight through London.

So overall transport strategy for boroughs and London needs updating.
 
Last edited:
and this:
Simply removing through traffic with bollards doesn’t always create the kind of headline-grabbing environments liked by politicians, but for a fraction of the cost it’s possible to create child-friendly streets and boost house prices.
Click to expand...

Railton area - it's a quick £30,000-£50,000 minimum. Foxtons more like £70,000..

Meanwhile everyone in the surrounding areas chokes on the extra pollution. Of course it's a Tory policy.
 
organicpanda said:
if Lambeth's Transport Strategy was to increase the traffic to levels I have not seen in my 25 years of living on Coldharbour Lane then they've succeeded. Every day (7 days a week) there are queues from the Atlantic Road/Coldharbour Lane traffic lights going to Gresham Road in one direction and Brixton Road in the other, the queues are also happening over more hours than before, the only time it has decreased is the early morning rush hour, shame there is no money to look at these problems here, according to the council when I enquired
Click to expand...

Curious you said you enquired and the Coucil said no money to look into these problems. Not criticising. So that is what the Council said to you? If so that is concerning.
 
Looks like someone shouted (abuse?) at Vauxhall's new MP today whilst she was walking with her kid, relating to the Oval Triangle LTN - which seems like an escalation. From what I can see online that one is getting quite nasty. I used to knock around that area in recent years and the traffic issue was one that came up all the time, but clearly the chosen solution is pretty controversial.
 
BusLanes said:
Looks like someone shouted (abuse?) at Vauxhall's new MP today whilst she was walking with her kid, relating to the Oval Triangle LTN - which seems like an escalation. From what I can see online that one is getting quite nasty. I used to knock around that area in recent years and the traffic issue was one that came up all the time, but clearly the chosen solution is pretty controversial.
Click to expand...

thats the feeling I get too, the problem is this has been pushed thru with no transparency, a lot of people are blaming whoever they are prejudiced against for whatever reason, it’s not doing a lot for social cohesion.

Loose meat said:
Is this about Oval LTN as well?
Click to expand...

this thread ? Yeah I think its about LTNs in Lambeth generally, but the ones over the border in Southwark around Kennington are generating a fair bit of heat as well.
 
BusLanes said:
Looks like someone shouted (abuse?) at Vauxhall's new MP today whilst she was walking with her kid, relating to the Oval Triangle LTN - which seems like an escalation. From what I can see online that one is getting quite nasty. I used to knock around that area in recent years and the traffic issue was one that came up all the time, but clearly the chosen solution is pretty controversial.
Click to expand...
The taxi drivers are whipping up a lot of noise around the one in Islington. Like I said earlier, lots of entitled motorists about, some of them ignoring the signs that are on the filters even now.
 
cuppa tee said:
in case anyone doesn’t think increased property prices are seen as a benefit by some supporters of LTNs

www.lcc.org.uk

Van Gogh Walk in Lambeth is a fabulous people-friendly street but highlights need for more Dutch-style residential zones

www.lcc.org.uk


View attachment 226989
Click to expand...

I doubt that anyone who supports the idea of LTNs would try and deny that they might affect nearby property prices. If you think they are something that gives people a better living environment then it would follow that that environment will become more desirable to people.

Is the fact that something might affect house prices a reason to argue against it? Or is it fair to then imply that the only reason anyone would support it would be out of self interest? Would the same apply to investment in a local school or park? Should improvements to common goods like school facilities be opposed or subject to automatic suspicion as soon as it turns out that some of the people promoting them own their houses? Or indeed, if it turns out that no-one actively promoting them has anything to gain in terms of property prices but someone somewhere might?

That article is from 2013 - a little while ago. One thing I think I've noticed, is that not that long ago, wealthier home owners were considered one of the main obstacles to getting these kinds of schemes through. Because they tend to own cars and object to things that makes it less convenient for them to use or park those cars. So, previously, people trying to promote these schemes, I think, though it was these people they had to persuade. Maybe a mention of house prices was part of that. More recently things seem to have changed somewhat, with the gentrification angle coming to the fore. As it happens, I reckon the wealthy car owners are still a big part of the problem, and they have rather cynically cottoned on to the fact that if they can portray this as something that's an attack on the freedom of social housing residents, or that is going to cause traffic mayhem and substantially increased pollution on streets where the less wealthy live, then that gains a lot of traction and is very twitter-friendly. You just need a bit of misinformation, some context-free videos of traffic getting jammed up in a street in the early period after changes are made, and some banners about divided communities. They are always terribly concerned about the pollution and the danger to children, and yes we really do need to do something about this, it's just that this LTN where they live isn't right (probably other LTNs elsewhere might be OK, it's just the one that affects them that hasn't been designed right, and there hasn't been transparent consultation), and we should be doing something else instead, something that they can't define in any detail, other than that it's not this.

But anyway, getting back to Van Gogh Walk, I wonder if anyone on this thread is willing to say that it should be torn up and reverted to provide that previously existing through-access? Because it must, according to the logic of the main arguments against the LTNs, be concentrating traffic and pollution onto nearby main roads, traffic and pollution which would be better dispersed throughout the residential streets. And, that blog post suggests it might have benefitted local property owners, and that unfair benefit could be taken back from them if the local changes were reversed. Anyone want to put their name down in support of a reversal of the Van Gogh Walk scheme?
 
nagapie said:
It's problematic that the attempt to get more people onto public transport comes at a time when people have real health fears about doing so and when fares are being introduced for young people and restricted travel for pensioners - joined up thinking and all that.
Click to expand...
Actually the measures that are being focused on right now are not really mainly about getting more people onto public transport, but getting as many people as possible walking and cycling, and that's not just about getting people out of cars, but reducing the pressure on public transport as much as possible.
 
teuchter said:
What do you want then?
Click to expand...


I have repeatedly stated on this thread that I critically support the LTN.

I also want that once these temporary LTNs are over proper consultation is restarted.

That whilst the LTNs are in place for temporary time peoples concerns/ observations are taken seriously.

That the Council ensure that the temporary LTNs are monitereed properly.

That traffic alterations are monitered by Council and funded to do so.

That at end of temporary period if local population of an LTN area want to keep LTN then they can keep it.

If they don't it goes.

If alterations are needed then they take place.

How the Council do this is the Council's responsibility not mine. This is a Coop Council. Despite the pandemic Councils do have a duty to consult in the future.

As the Council have decided to implement the LTNs without consultation due to pandemic I will give them no more than critical support.

I will give them critical support for the time being.

I will wait to see when normal procedures apply once more if the Council keeps to its word about consultation.
 
Last edited:
teuchter said:
I doubt that anyone who supports the idea of LTNs would try and deny that they might affect nearby property prices. If you think they are something that gives people a better living environment then it would follow that that environment will become more desirable to people.

Is the fact that something might affect house prices a reason to argue against it? Or is it fair to then imply that the only reason anyone would support it would be out of self interest? Would the same apply to investment in a local school or park? Should improvements to common goods like school facilities be opposed or subject to automatic suspicion as soon as it turns out that some of the people promoting them own their houses? Or indeed, if it turns out that no-one actively promoting them has anything to gain in terms of property prices but someone somewhere might?
Click to expand...
I love this. It's like watching a goldfish over eat becasue it forgot what happened 30 seconds ago.

The point about Railton area LTN is that other people - outside the Railton area LTN - pay the price of the gain of those inside. The Sharp Elbows suffer less air and noise pollution, those outside more air and noise pollution,. And more potential danger for their children.

It's only the tenth time someone has mentioned this to you. It's almost as if you can't quite grasp the idea that others suffering miserably for your gain is in any way questionable.
 
Loose meat said:
The point about Railton area LTN is that other people - outside the Railton area LTN - pay the price of the gain of those inside. The Sharp Elbows suffer less air and noise pollution, those outside more air and noise pollution,. And more potential danger for their children.
Click to expand...
You claim to believe this, yet you don't want to save any children's lives by reversing all existing traffic measures that restrict motor access to residential streets. You want us to carry on with the things you think bring misery to thousands of Londoners. Weird.
 
Gramsci said:
That at end of temporary period if local population of an LTN area want to keep LTN then they can keep it.

If they don't it goes.
Click to expand...

I pretty much agree with all the stuff about monitoring and making adjustments.

On this particular point though, what's your definition of the local population? Is it people that live within the LTN area? Or within a certain distance? And how do you determine whether they want it - is there a vote?
 
teuchter said:
I pretty much agree with all the stuff about monitoring and making adjustments.

On this particular point though, what's your definition of the local population? Is it people that live within the LTN area? Or within a certain distance? And how do you determine whether they want it - is there a vote?
Click to expand...

This isn't my problem. Council have introduced these LTNs , they have been a Coop Council for years I await to see how they are going to do the proper consultation that people have a right to once pandemic is over.

As the Council have decided to bring these LTNs on "Neighbourhood" basis they have defined it should be done on a neighbourhood basis. Which appears to how the Council are doing this. So Im not out of line with Council on that.
 
sleaterkinney said:
House prices are f**ked anyway with this COVID slump coming up, it’s bizarre that people think they’re going up 50k with this.
Click to expand...
Except those against the schemes who think they’re going down 50.k because they can’t drive the shortest route to herne hill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

editor
Cyclist killed in Brixton
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
T & P
T & P
blameless77
After work pint in Brixton?
Replies
12
Views
799
editor
editor
editor
It's a grim Christmas around Brixton: no lights, no tree and no funfair
Replies
1
Views
744
skyscraper101
skyscraper101
editor
Coronation (and anti Coronation events this weekend in and around Brixton
Replies
5
Views
803
Gramsci
Gramsci
editor
Homophobia in Brixton
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
Tulster218
T
Back
Top Bottom