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

[newbie]

“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.

Can you stand that up please.

I was referring to this evaluation of all the mini Holland schemes, published May 2019

 

[newbie]

Pretty much. If you want to reduce traffic london-wide you need to reduce capacity and make the city less porous to motor vehicles.

By forcing them on to main roads without consideration of consequences. ok.

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.

why shouldn't it work? According to this thread the traffic will evaporate and there won't be any negative consequences. e2a did you look at the pollution map?

I applaud your ambition to use Cardiff as a template, so let's close Brixton Road between the police station and new Town Hall as well.

 

[teuchter]

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.

I've said (as you yourself quoted):

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

If you choose to interpret any statement mentioning benefits as meaning there are no downsides, despite those downsides having been explicitly mentioned previously, there's not much I can do about that.

Would you like it stated explicitly again? Here we go: closing any road, including one like Atlantic Road, has downsides, which can include increased traffic and pollution elsewhere and certain essential journeys taking a bit longer.

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?

It's not possible to close all roads in a city, because there are certain journeys that need to be made by motorised road vehicles. So, no it is automatically the case that closing any road will produce net benefit. Would Brixton town centre be nicer with Coldharbour Lane, Altlantic Road and Brixton Road all completely closed? Absolutely it would, but it's unlikely that would ever be feasible, because fairly significant north-south and east-west routes pass through Brixton.

However, I would hope there's a future where there is much less traffic passing through Brixton. While it might never be possible to close all those roads completely in my opinion it is entirely realistic to reach a point where we have much less motor traffic in general in London, which might allow, for example, the number of lanes on Brixton Road to be reduced, giving more pavement space, maybe Coldharbour Lane being closed at certain times of day or maybe even completely except for buses, if general traffic levels can be reduced enough that east-west traffic could all go via, say, Gresham Road.

I think trying to close Atlantic Rd and Coldharbour Lane at the same time probably would not work, but closing Altlantic Rd could well be the first step in an incremental process that ends up with us also being able to close or mostly-close Coldharbour Lane to motor traffic.

To say that people are trying to argue that all proposals to close roads are a good thing that will automatically and without question produce benefit just seems like willful misunderstanding to me.

 

[teuchter]

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

In the short term perhaps but if the longer term aim is to make all London neighbourhoods 'liveable' then these changes need to happen at some point.

In any case, if you want to look at it from a selfish Brixton point of view, then if Brixton continues as a relatively traffic-porous area amidst surrounding neighbourhoods which are becoming increasingly traffic non-porous, then it is just going to suffer from that displaced traffic that you are worried about. And yes I do accept that some traffic is displaced but the overall amount of traffic in south London/London would still be decreasing.

 

[Gramsci]

“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.


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”.



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.


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.

Ive checked the Lambeth website and I can't see a consultation about this.

Where is it?

Consultations | Lambeth Council

 

[teuchter]

Ive checked the Lambeth website and I can't see a consultation about this.

Where is it?

Consultations | Lambeth Council

https://brixtonlnmap.commonplace.is/comment

 

[Gramsci]

“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.


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”.



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.


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.

On consultation.

Your missing my point.

If the idea is to create a liveable neighbourhood then people should be asked before being presented with , what look to me like finished plans.

As the boundary comes to my bit of Loughborough junction and according to the proposal young people are important part of this project I will make a couple of suggestions.

Housing. An important part of a liveable neighbourhood imo.

Make developers put 40% affordable.

Guarantee that the land the Grove adventure playground is on will not be built on. I and other locals have been arguing with the council about this for a couple of years.

If the council want people to be more active they should listen to residents and protect adventure playgrounds.

In LJ a developer is trying to put just 17 per cent affordable in recent planning application.

Including issues like this in liveable neighbourhood idea would imo get it more support.

 

[teuchter]

Can you stand that up please.

I was referring to this evaluation of all the mini Holland schemes, published May 2019
View attachment 171750

Firstly let's be clear that there are two different issues: one is the change in travel habits of people living within an area, the other is the amount of road traffic in that area, not all of which is generated by its residents.

That study is looking at the former.

It's a study that is looking for effects whilst the schemes are still in the process of implementation.

You've picked out one thing where they did not find evidence of a significant effect - likelihood that someone's used a car in the past week.

On the other hand they *have* found evidence that people are walking and cycling more - although, like with most of these things, the level of effect is variable and complicated.

If you're going to pick out one part of a report, how about the summary?



You imply that the basic finding of this report was that there is no significant evidence of the benefits of completed interventions - but in reality, it's a report that finds there are some signs of positive effects even before the interventions have been fully implemented. It's a 'watch this space' report with fairly positive initial indications.

People can read the full report for themselves. Here is another part of the conclusions though:

5.3. Meaning of the study and implications for policy and future research

The consistent results build confidence in the findings; where statistical significance is not reached the effect is generally in the expected direction. Similarly, the larger effects (in terms of travel behaviour change, and views about the cycling environment) in high-dose mini-Holland areas than in low-dose mini-Holland areas indicates that in places where borough stakeholders expected change to happen based on intervention timescales, there was indeed stronger evidence of change. This ‘dose response’ effect adds confidence to our ability to attribute a causal role to the mini-Holland intervention. The exception is the change in attitudes towards cycling spending in the mini-Holland boroughs, seen just as strongly in the low-dose areas as in the high-dose areas. In other words, the benefits of the intervention were specific to people living near to new infrastructure, whereas the controversy around the schemes was observed across a wider area.

Prior to the roll-out of the scheme, the potential for negative impacts on users of other modes was widely discussed (e.g. Mead, 2015, Hill, 2015). We found no evidence of this. For instance, there was no evidence that time spent in cars was increasing (due to congestion), nor that walking environments were becoming less attractive due to the introduction of cycle lanes. On the contrary, it is encouraging that the increase in active travel was composed both of more walking, and more cycling - this perhaps reflects the refocusing of the mini-Holland programme to focus on walking as well as cycling along with an early focus on traffic reduction in residential areas in Waltham Forest. It is encouraging that there was no evidence that the impact of the mini-Holland programme was unequally distributed across demographic or socio-economic groups (although statistical power to detect such differences was low).

Goodman et al. (2014) found being one kilometre closer (in terms of shortest route network distance) to new walking and cycling infrastructure was associated with an increase in active travel of 15.3 min per week. Our findings are not directly comparable because Goodman et al. studied route-based interventions, while we have used an area-based measure. Our increase of 41.0 min per week (for people living in the high-dose areas) is apparent at one-year follow-up, while Goodman et al. (2014) only found evidence of change after two years.

The findings suggest that large-scale interventions with ambitious area-based components can lead to uptake in active travel, even over only a year, with the programmes only partly implemented. Outer London had not previously seen the substantial mode shift observed in Inner London, thus this suggests that even in less apparently promising locations, investment can drive uplift in walking and cycling. Area-based interventions incorporating cycle routes and neighbourhood traffic reduction may be particularly good at encouraging active travel more broadly, compared to cycle routes alone. They may also be easier to evaluate because they are intended to have an area-level effect, contributing to a greater chance of identifying travel behaviour change if such takes place.

The mini-Holland interventions have, however, been controversial, generating 'backlash'. This has been most notoriously the case in Waltham Forest with vocal protests, particularly early on (Patient, 2017, Hill, 2015, Hill, 2017). However, Waltham Forest seems to be driving the growth in active travel and improved perceptions of the cycling environment found here. While backlash did not represent a majority of participants in mini-Holland boroughs (neither did it translate into voting behaviour in London's May 2018 council elections) it highlights an ongoing need for political leadership in England to successfully implement such interventions (Aldred et al., 2017).

Future research should consider obtaining a larger and more representative random sample of individuals or households, for instance by interviewing participants in person, and following-up in person, as is done for the National Travel Survey. This would be much more expensive and beyond this project’s relatively small budget, but would help evidence the extent to which changes are likely to be common across wider populations. Future research could also usefully incorporate a qualitative longitudinal component, to examine in more detail how and why views and behaviour may be changing.

 

[Gramsci]

https://brixtonlnmap.commonplace.is/comment

All I see is a map. Is this Council consultation? Who set this up?

 

[newbie]

To say that people are trying to argue that all proposals to close roads are a good thing that will automatically and without question produce benefit just seems like willful misunderstanding to me.

Why? A while back you eventually accepted that there would be increased traffic on BR, because I pushed you to do so. Apart from that no-one has really agreed there could be any negative consequences for anyone, and since then, as I've quoted, your posts reverted to simply highlighting benefits.

Anyway, that's history, perhaps we're moving away from evangelising pure benefit to trying to look properly at cost/benefit, or risk/reward, which is where we could have been pages ago.

So what are the factors on each side of the equation, which identifiable individuals will be directly affected, how will it bear on which social or demographic groups and so on?

Trouble is we have inadequate information to properly engage with this consultation. Although they don't tell us, there must be figures for, eg, the number of residents living within 25m of AR to contrast with those near the most affected sections of CHL & BR; or estimates of footfall, bus passengers, retail staff; perhaps there's research on the source and destination of the 6,000 vehicles per day that apparently use AR, or modelling of how traffic will percolate or pollution concentrate or disperse. They may have used studies from elsewhere to estimate how much extra active travel they anticipate, and have modeled the class and racial components of the winning and losing demographics. Who knows what information they used, we're not told, just as we're not told how the traffic will actually work. Instead of that there's a set of tags to preload the consultation.

 

[newbie]

You've picked out one thing where they did not find evidence of a significant effect - likelihood that someone's used a car in the past week.

You told me about the general pattern, I queried using the work 'insignificant' which thebackrow picked up and I substantiated. It may be only one part of a bigger report, but it does cast doubt on your 'general pattern' assertion, which underpins the only-benefit-no-cost narrative.

 

[teuchter]

Why? A while back you eventually accepted that there would be increased traffic on BR, because I pushed you to do so. Apart from that no-one has really agreed there could be any negative consequences for anyone, and since then, as I've quoted, your posts reverted to simply highlighting benefits.

This is just nonsense.

 

[teuchter]

it does cast doubt on your 'general pattern' assertion,

No it doesn't.

which underpins the only-benefit-no-cost narrative.

No such narrative is being presented.

I think it's a waste of time discussing this with you.

 

[newbie]

This is just nonsense.

Can you show where anyone other than me has highlighted negatives of closing Atlantic Road.

 

[thebackrow]

On consultation.
If the idea is to create a liveable neighbourhood then people should be asked before being presented with , what look to me like finished plans.
As the boundary comes to my bit of Loughborough junction and according to the proposal young people are important part of this project I will make a couple of suggestions.

You are wilfully misunderstanding this process aren’t you? The first post on this conversation is linked to the first engagement/consultation of the Liveable Neighbourhood. You must have missed the link, as the page linked to says-

“Engagement with the people who live, work and visit Brixton is critical to this project. There’s no point building new public places and changing the way our streets work if this isn’t planned with the people of Brixton for the people of Brixton. While our bid to TfL contains plenty of bold ideas, the only thing that is fixed at this stage is our ambition and determination to make Brixton and the surrounding area a better, healthier place with cleaner air, safer more accessible streets and support for the unique mix of local businesses and attractions in the area.”

There are no detailed plans to comment on at this stage — there are broad ideas. TfL have released a small amount of funding to consult and start to flesh these out. Then they’ll release more money for detailed designs to be produced, which will be consulted on.

The council/project team arent likely to be monitoring this thread, so if you’ve got suggestions (that are within the scope of the Liveable Neighbourhood project - you can read up on the TfL site what types of things this money can fund) the consultation site, which the first post in this thread linked to, would be the place to do it.

 

[teuchter]

This is just nonsense.

To illustrate this, here are numerous times throughout this thread where I've acknowledged potential downsides of road closure schemes.

These are just the usual old arguments. By this logic we can't try and reduce traffic elsewhere. To reduce traffic in london you have to make it less convenient to drive. If closing AR makes certain journeys less convenient then fewer people will drive. Traffic does not simply get displaced on a 1:1 basis. This is well studied, basic stuff.

That's fair enough, of course the details are important and the Loughborough Junction road closures were an example of a scheme which failed not because the basic idea was bad but because of the way it was implemented.

I am yet to read up on the proposals for this scheme so can't answer the specific questions right now; however, I post the facts backing up the general point that the effects of displacement are usually over-egged because I know that this is very commonly an initial objection. Anyone coming to this thread, who has worries about the effects of displaced traffic, can read that general commentary alongside looking at the particulars of this scheme. People are of course free to put their worries about negative effects into the comments on the map, and I'd hope that the people designing the scheme will make the effort to counter those properly, and/or adjust the proposals to take any valid concerns into account.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Would you like it stated explicitly again? Here we go: closing any road, including one like Atlantic Road, has downsides, which can include increased traffic and pollution elsewhere and certain essential journeys taking a bit longer.

It's not possible to close all roads in a city, because there are certain journeys that need to be made by motorised road vehicles. So, no it is automatically the case that closing any road will produce net benefit. Would Brixton town centre be nicer with Coldharbour Lane, Altlantic Road and Brixton Road all completely closed? Absolutely it would, but it's unlikely that would ever be feasible, because fairly significant north-south and east-west routes pass through Brixton.

However, I would hope there's a future where there is much less traffic passing through Brixton. While it might never be possible to close all those roads completely in my opinion it is entirely realistic to reach a point where we have much less motor traffic in general in London, which might allow, for example, the number of lanes on Brixton Road to be reduced, giving more pavement space, maybe Coldharbour Lane being closed at certain times of day or maybe even completely except for buses, if general traffic levels can be reduced enough that east-west traffic could all go via, say, Gresham Road.

I think trying to close Atlantic Rd and Coldharbour Lane at the same time probably would not work, but closing Altlantic Rd could well be the first step in an incremental process that ends up with us also being able to close or mostly-close Coldharbour Lane to motor traffic.

 

[thebackrow]

By forcing them on to main roads without consideration of consequences. ..
... so let's close Brixton Road between the police station and new Town Hall as well.

Of course, Brixton Road is due for changes (and presumably capacity reduction) as well. TfL have been talking about the A23 as being one of the highest priority cycling corridors since before the current mayor arrived.

It’s now described by TfL as “Cycle Future Route 15”. There are some plans for protected cycle lanes on the Streatham section that appeared in draft last year and are due for consultation soon (Streatham Green News: TfL shares two ideas for changes to the A23 in Streatham Hill and i think other stuff later in the year).

The Lambeth Transport Strategy (consulted on at the end of last year and now approved) mentions it (as potentially being built by 2022)
Will Norman (mayors walking and cycling czar) has mentioned plans for a “major Streatham to Oval cycle route” are at design stage

 

[newbie]

Of course, Brixton Road is due for changes (and presumably capacity reduction) as well. TfL have been talking about the A23 as being one of the highest priority cycling corridors since before the current mayor arrived.

It’s now described by TfL as “Cycle Future Route 15”. There are some plans for protected cycle lanes on the Streatham section that appeared in draft last year and are due for consultation soon (Streatham Green News: TfL shares two ideas for changes to the A23 in Streatham Hill and i think other stuff later in the year).

The Lambeth Transport Strategy (consulted on at the end of last year and now approved) mentions it (as potentially being built by 2022)
Will Norman (mayors walking and cycling czar) has mentioned plans for a “major Streatham to Oval cycle route” are at design stage

I've got to go out but that's the map associated with this proposal. I presumed you'd seen it. It's in this pdf.

 

[thebackrow]

Put all these things together and you might start to think it was part of an overall strategy to prioritise walking, cycling and public transport over use of private cars London wide

It’s the sort of thing you’d expect a democratically elected mayor with resposnibility for transport to develop. You’d expect it to be consulted on and published.

The Mayor's Transport Strategy

 

[thebackrow]

I've got to go out but that's the map associated with this proposal. I presumed you'd seen it. It's in this pdf.

Bottom of the second tweet in that series.

“Plus@TfL’s plans for a major Oval to Streatham cycle route have just begun the design stage. Can’t wait to share them! 2/2”

Not the first mention of it, in case you think that one isnt clear.

 

[Winot]

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.

There are some interesting points raised here which are tricky to resolve. I don’t have time right now to respond properly, but it does strike me that what we mean by ‘democracy’ isn’t always clear.

For example, in London a key issue for transport schemes is whether TfL or a LA holds the power. So Livingstone had power to introduce the CC and Khan the ULEZ. But when it came to Khan’s Oxford St plans, Westminster was able to block it because of their local power.

Is this democracy? It’s true that Westminster Council were elected and so had a local mandate. But should a local mandate block a scheme that - I would argue - actually benefits the whole of London.

As I say, these are tricky issues and there are no easy answers.

 

[Gramsci]

You are wilfully misunderstanding this process aren’t you? The first post on this conversation is linked to the first engagement/consultation of the Liveable Neighbourhood. You must have missed the link, as the page linked to says-

“Engagement with the people who live, work and visit Brixton is critical to this project. There’s no point building new public places and changing the way our streets work if this isn’t planned with the people of Brixton for the people of Brixton. While our bid to TfL contains plenty of bold ideas, the only thing that is fixed at this stage is our ambition and determination to make Brixton and the surrounding area a better, healthier place with cleaner air, safer more accessible streets and support for the unique mix of local businesses and attractions in the area.”

There are no detailed plans to comment on at this stage — there are broad ideas. TfL have released a small amount of funding to consult and start to flesh these out. Then they’ll release more money for detailed designs to be produced, which will be consulted on.

The council/project team arent likely to be monitoring this thread, so if you’ve got suggestions (that are within the scope of the Liveable Neighbourhood project - you can read up on the TfL site what types of things this money can fund) the consultation site, which the first post in this thread linked to, would be the place to do it.

I cant find anything on that website to say its a council consultation. Or who the "we" are.

Its not on the Council consultation page of the Council website.

Nor am I being wilful.

If the idea is to make liveable neighbourhoods I have my own ideas for that.

The couple of examples I put forward fit imo to the idea of a liveable neighbourhood.

Particularly keeping the adventure playground.

 

[teuchter]

I cant find anything on that website to say its a council consultation. Or who the "we" are.

Its not on the Council consultation page of the Council website.

Nor am I being wilful.

If the idea is to make liveable neighbourhoods I have my own ideas for that.

The couple of examples I put forward fit imo to the idea of a liveable neighbourhood.

Particularly keeping the adventure playground.

Why not continue to support/do/suggest the stuff you mention, and also support the principle of reducing traffic and making things more pedestrian/cycle friendly, when there's an opportunity for funding from the TfL transport specific budget to be used on transport-specific improvements locally? Why is it a choice between that and the other things you put forward as important?

 

[Gramsci]

Why not continue to support/do/suggest the stuff you mention, and also support the principle of reducing traffic and making things more pedestrian/cycle friendly, when there's an opportunity for funding from the TfL transport specific budget to be used on transport-specific improvements locally? Why is it a choice between that and the other things you put forward as important?

As I said at recent meeting if this was about reducing traffic I would continue to support/ offer suggestions.

I've put a few suggestions here. Stop the Railton road rat run by stopping vehicles turning into Railton road when they come by Bockwell park and looking at making CHL from Dogstsar to Ritzy pedestrian / cycle only zone instead.

What I can't deal with is the "liveable neighborhood" wind up.

I'm guessing the website is written by Council officers. It reads like it was written by them.

I've spent last few years having arguments with officers over Rec and Grove adventure playground. This "liveable neighborhood" is for me total wind up.

I've spent last few years trying to keep this a "liveable neighborhood" working largely against officers plans. Keeping Rec as community asset and stopping Grove APG being sold off and built on as part of Regen "regeneration" project.

The thing is the Council has no money and little real power now. Planning is example.

One thing it can do is bid for grants from TFL and Mayor. This is what officers in Regen/ jobs and growth spend their time doing.

They have this TFL liveable neighborhood money, Good Growth Fund, Creative Enterprise Zone. All from TFL/ Sadiq.

If its free money they apply for it. Keeps them in work and justifies Council existing.

Often bids are put in, which should have had more local residents input, officers say they would have liked to do this. But lack of time meant they didn't. Then get told its money Brixton desperately needs so please support it. And we ask for your input at some other time.

Had this recently at meeting. Council are deciding a policy on an issue. One official let slip this was happening. I asked when local residents groups will be invited and asked their opinion. Told recent meeting was not for local community groups. I know why. They argue. The local state manages population through the senior officers, senior managers of Council services ( outsourced or not) , senior managers in social housing/ social work Sector, senior police officers.

Definitely not local residents groups. We are last in line.

I don't think ordinary people realise a lot goes on in Council which even more active individuals like me aren't privy to.

Policy / plans get decided then filtered down through more junior officers. Then in reality minimal consultation takes place. I recently had to urge local group I'm involved in to refuse meeting officers until we had a proper written response to our queries to Cllrs.

I get on with officers and Cllrs but I know they see me as potentially a member of the awkward squad. Which I don't see myself as. I just want the Council to listen and support residents who show willing to contribute to local society.

Its why Cllr Rachel was driven out. She saw this.

 

[teuchter]

As I said at recent meeting if this was about reducing traffic I would continue to support/ offer suggestions.

I've put a few suggestions here. Stop the Railton road rat run by stopping vehicles turning into Railton road when they come by Bockwell park and looking at making CHL from Dogstsar to Ritzy pedestrian / cycle only zone instead.

What I can't deal with is the "liveable neighborhood" wind up.

I'm guessing the website is written by Council officers. It reads like it was written by them.

I've spent last few years having arguments with officers over Rec and Grove adventure playground. This "liveable neighborhood" is for me total wine up.

I've spent last few years trying to keep this a "liveable neighborhood" working largely against officers plans. Keeping Rec as community asset and stopping Grove APG being sold off and built on as part of Regen "regeneration" project.

The thing is the Council has no money and little real power now. Planning is example.

One thing it can do is bid for grants from TFL and Mayor. This is what officers in Regen/ jobs and growth spend their time doing.

They have this TFL liveable neighborhood money, Good Growth Fund, Creative Enterprise Zone. All from TFL/ Sadiq.

If its free money they apply for it. Keeps them in work and justifies Council existing.

Often bids are put in, which should have had more local residents input, officers say they would have liked to do this. But lack of time meant they didn't. Then get told its money Brixton desperately needs so please support it. And we ask for your input at some other time.

Had this recently at meeting. Council are deciding a policy on an issue. One official let slip this was happening. I asked when local residents groups will be invited and asked their opinion. Told recent decision meeting was a "hierarchy meeting". Not for local community groups. I know why. They argue. The local state manages population through the "hierarchy". Senior officers, senior managers of Council services ( outsourced or not) , senior managers in social housing/ work Sector, senior police officers.

Definitely not local residents groups. We are last in line.

I don't think ordinary people realise a lot goes on in Council which even more active individuals like me aren't privy to.

Policy / plans get decided then filtered down through more junior officers. Then in reality minimal consultation takes place. I recently had to urge local group I'm involved in to refuse meeting officers until we had a proper written response to our queries to Cllrs.

I get on with officers and Cllrs but I know they see me as potentially a member of the awkward squad. Which I don't see myself as. I just want the Council to listen and support residents who show willing to contribute to local society.

Its why Cllr Rachel was driven out. She saw this.

Yup I'm aware that this is how a lot of stuff happens and I don't really like it either.

The way I see it though, is that the current TfL/mayor transport policies are largely quite good. This is amidst a load of policy on various issues at whatever level that I can't feel very positive about. Including a lot of the stuff you mention. So in principle I want to support these efforts to reduce car dominance and make london better for getting around on foot and bike and to tackle air pollution and congestion. Supporting this stuff might mean that it has to be accepted that it goes through the wheels of ropey Lambeth consultation and implementation. Otherwise it doesn't happen at all, or it only happens in other parts of town. There's enough resistance to these kinds of changes already - in many parts of the UK it would be almost impossible to get this kind of strategy enacted as it would be seen as wildly radical - without them getting scuppered by folk rejecting them because Lambeth are involved or because they don't like the name of the project or to make a point about other issues that *don't* have policy ready to go and with funding behind them.

 

[newbie]

Put all these things together and you might start to think it was part of an overall strategy to prioritise walking, cycling and public transport over use of private cars London wide

It’s the sort of thing you’d expect a democratically elected mayor with resposnibility for transport to develop. You’d expect it to be consulted on and published.

The Mayor's Transport Strategy

Of course there's a strategy, and of course the available funding should be sought and used locally in pursuit of that strategy. That's not at issue.

In this case I think I've made clear my reservations about closing one specific street. Others appear to take the view that this proposal is automatically good and doesn't require much scrutiny. We'll have to hope you're all right, won't we, or more little girls living close to main roads will die.

The road pricing proposal nobody wants to discuss is much more likely to produce the sort of reduction in overall vehicle use required.

 

[thebackrow]

The road pricing proposal nobody wants to discuss is much more likely to produce the sort of reduction in overall vehicle use required.

That's a classic bit of 'fake news'. I've already said I support road pricing and I put that as feedback to both the mayors Transport Strategy and to the Lambeth Transport Strategy (that they should lobby the Mayor to introduce it - a policy the City of London and other boroughs have in their strategies too.) The more LAs lobbying for it the more likely it is to happen. Overton windows and all that.

However, road pricing can't practically be implemented at a borough level. It would be hugely expensive to set up even if it was (with budget that Lambeth don't have) and Lambeth couldn't implement it on TfL roads without their assent. Liveable Neighbourhood schemes aren't incompatible with road pricing - need both. Stop the rat running, charge on the main roads.

That means it seems a pretty abstract discussion to be having on a thread about Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood - maybe start a separate thread where I'd happily delve into options. It's an inevitable future but I far enough into the future that I don't have a strong view on the finer details yet so would be a good exercise.

What *is* on offer is a scheme that could reduce through traffic on residential streets over a large area around Brixton and remove it completely from a busy shopping street. If successful (as Waltham Forest was) it would likely lead to more funding and spread to a wider area.

You don't like the idea of closing Atlantic Road. Which roads would you close to through traffic or do you think we should maximise porosity for driving remove any restrictions that have been put in in the past and make every street busy and polluted?

 

[teuchter]

I too support road pricing in principle.

I actually would favour cranking up parking charges substantially in lieu of it, as a technologically less complex option.

I am open to either Coldharbour Lane or Atlantic Rd being pedestrianised, and would be interested to see the reasoning behind any choice once the scheme reaches a more detailed design stage.

Of course, either way, at least one little girl probably dies somewhere, but naturally I don't care about that, and don't think the plans should be scrutinised at all, just like everyone else who thinks this might be a good thing to get behind.

 

[Gramsci]

That's a classic bit of 'fake news'. I've already said I support road pricing and I put that as feedback to both the mayors Transport Strategy and to the Lambeth Transport Strategy (that they should lobby the Mayor to introduce it - a policy the City of London and other boroughs have in their strategies too.) The more LAs lobbying for it the more likely it is to happen. Overton windows and all that.

However, road pricing can't practically be implemented at a borough level. It would be hugely expensive to set up even if it was (with budget that Lambeth don't have) and Lambeth couldn't implement it on TfL roads without their assent. Liveable Neighbourhood schemes aren't incompatible with road pricing - need both. Stop the rat running, charge on the main roads.

That means it seems a pretty abstract discussion to be having on a thread about Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood - maybe start a separate thread where I'd happily delve into options. It's an inevitable future but I far enough into the future that I don't have a strong view on the finer details yet so would be a good exercise.

What *is* on offer is a scheme that could reduce through traffic on residential streets over a large area around Brixton and remove it completely from a busy shopping street. If successful (as Waltham Forest was) it would likely lead to more funding and spread to a wider area.

You don't like the idea of closing Atlantic Road. Which roads would you close to through traffic or do you think we should maximise porosity for driving remove any restrictions that have been put in in the past and make every street busy and polluted?

I think Newbie has raised good points. If I get him right he wants to ensure social equity.

The argument that keeps getting put forward is that this is happening. Alternatives are all very well but that is for separate discussion.

Its the kind of argument I regularly get from Council officers on other issues.

It looks to me that TFL / Mayor / Councils have decided that the way to reduce car use is a London wide "Liveable neighborhood" scheme.

This is going to be introduced to communities from above.

Its going to be a take it or leave it argument.

If like Newbie you want a different London wide policy you are being told you aren't being realistic.

That opposing this livable neighborhood policy because you want different form of traffic reduction means you are playing into the hands of the car lobby.

Its an issue I have with consultation. Parameters are set. If you go outside them or question them you're categorised as just being difficult.The awkward squad.

 

[Gramsci]

I've been looking at the comments on the website. Noticed several like this:

Interesting comment on Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood

Saying that this is about making an area a "Liveable neighborhood" means that people will bring up issues that aren't directly about car use.

Like drug dealing on their estate. Not a new problem.

Extending the definition of liveable neighborhood from narrow one to one that is more meaningful.

This isn't wilfull.

Its quite understandable. Its what I have been indicating here.

If people are to be got on side to change transport use using concepts like liveable neighborhood then their concerns/ input for overall liveability of neighborhood need addressing.

Otherwise, and this is the lesson from Loughborough Junction, it will be rejected or accepted with resentment if imposed from above.

I've also noticed comments on people complaining of cars using their estates as rat runs. Mopeds being driven at speed in estates.

These aren't new problems.

To much emphasis in this project is about central Brixton. Not the people included in the boundary in imo superficial way. The boundary is quite large.