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

[teuchter]

Please point to the posts that describe what I've asked for, the local detail.

You asked for narrative, not local detail.

The narrative is that a certain type of scheme tends to produce a certain type of result. That type of result has been observed not just worldwide and over an extended period of time but in similar-ish schemes elsewhere in London, in the recent past, where it can be assumed that certain general conditions are shared with this location. Certain London-specific and Lambeth- or local-specific characteristics, that suggest that displacement effects are likely to be towards the lower end of the range observed amongst general cases, have been identified and discussed - just for example, the proportion of car journeys that are made over walkable distances.

If you want specific local detail then you are asking for something no-one can give you because none of us here have access to data that describes what proportion of journeys, for example along Atlantic Road, are of what type. So it would be foolish for anyone to start making highly specific predictions. The only reasonable approach at this stage is to look at the general case and try and ascertain whether there's anything special about this particular case which means that it will produce anomolous results. I don't see that there is.

You have made certain specific predictions - congestion worsening significantly in certain locations. Perhaps you are frustrated that no-one is countering these predictions. The reason I am not countering them is I don't have the necessary information that would allow me to do so in a meaningful way. And I don't see why there's any point in trying to counter predictions that themselves aren't based on the kind of detailed information that would make them meaningful. Your predictions of congestion at particular locations are no less speculative than suggestions that no significant extra congestion will result.

I don't think there's much further we can go with this until (a)some actual proposals exist and (b)those designing and promoting those proposals provide some information about how they have come to their decisions.

 

[newbie]

You asked for narrative, not local detail.

The narrative is that a certain type of scheme tends to produce a certain type of result. That type of result has been observed not just worldwide and over an extended period of time but in similar-ish schemes elsewhere in London, in the recent past, where it can be assumed that certain general conditions are shared with this location. Certain London-specific and Lambeth- or local-specific characteristics, that suggest that displacement effects are likely to be towards the lower end of the range observed amongst general cases, have been identified and discussed - just for example, the proportion of car journeys that are made over walkable distances.

If you want specific local detail then you are asking for something no-one can give you because none of us here have access to data that describes what proportion of journeys, for example along Atlantic Road, are of what type. So it would be foolish for anyone to start making highly specific predictions. The only reasonable approach at this stage is to look at the general case and try and ascertain whether there's anything special about this particular case which means that it will produce anomolous results. I don't see that there is.

You have made certain specific predictions - congestion worsening significantly in certain locations. Perhaps you are frustrated that no-one is countering these predictions. The reason I am not countering them is I don't have the necessary information that would allow me to do so in a meaningful way. And I don't see why there's any point in trying to counter predictions that themselves aren't based on the kind of detailed information that would make them meaningful. Your predictions of congestion at particular locations are no less speculative than suggestions that no significant extra congestion will result.

I don't think there's much further we can go with this until (a)some actual proposals exist and (b)those designing and promoting those proposals provide some information about how they have come to their decisions.

I've got to go and do other things now, so there will be plenty of time for you to fill in the missing info.

Of course I've been speculative when I've used local knowledge and looked at maps and web resources to try to understand what will happen if this scheme is implemented. There's absolutely no reason why you can't do the same, junction by junction, without wriggling.

So yes, it is frustrating,eg because despite all the general assurances, no-one has told me why there will be fewer white van deliveries or Uber trips if Atlantic or Railton Roads is closed. Nor commuters, school runners or local journeys.

There were 40,000 Uber drivers, and 3.5m customers in London in 2017 paying £184million. That's just one company. Cabs are not an insignificant factor.
Nor are deliveries, up 66% since 2014 nationwide and expected to grow another 54% by 2023.
It's not unreasonable to ask why you think closing either or both of these two roads will cause that traffic to evaporate. If it doesn't, where will it go, how will it service its customers? We can't quantify the displacement, but you do need to explain, using something more than general research dating back to before either was a significant factor and apparently not updated since.

It's also not unreasonable to ask what routes and junctions will be adversely affected by local road closures, and which residents, workers and users will be harmed as a result. Refusal to engage on that just reinforces my impression that no-one but me cares.

 

[snowy_again]

Ideally last mile deliveries become non car based.

 

[Winot]

newbie you are asking for evidence that traffic evaporation will happen for this scheme but when evidence is given for other schemes you complain that they are not applicable because they relate to other places. The only way to provide the evidence you require is for this scheme to proceed.

 

[teuchter]

I've got to go and do other things now, so there will be plenty of time for you to fill in the missing info.

Of course I've been speculative when I've used local knowledge and looked at maps and web resources to try to understand what will happen if this scheme is implemented. There's absolutely no reason why you can't do the same, junction by junction, without wriggling.

So yes, it is frustrating,eg because despite all the general assurances, no-one has told me why there will be fewer white van deliveries or Uber trips if Atlantic or Railton Roads is closed. Nor commuters, school runners or local journeys.

There were 40,000 Uber drivers, and 3.5m customers in London in 2017 paying £184million. That's just one company. Cabs are not an insignificant factor.
Nor are deliveries, up 66% since 2014 nationwide and expected to grow another 54% by 2023.
It's not unreasonable to ask why you think closing either or both of these two roads will cause that traffic to evaporate. If it doesn't, where will it go, how will it service its customers? We can't quantify the displacement, but you do need to explain, using something more than general research dating back to before either was a significant factor and apparently not updated since.

It's also not unreasonable to ask what routes and junctions will be adversely affected by local road closures, and which residents, workers and users will be harmed as a result. Refusal to engage on that just reinforces my impression that no-one but me cares.

These questions have already been answered, as best as they can at this point before any specific proposals or scheme details are available, and your constant misrepresentation that people are 'refusing to engage' with your points gives me no motivation to try and repeat a load of stuff again. Specifically regarding ubers and delivery vehicles: I don't know enough about the traffic make up to know how significant they are, nor do I see any reason that they should not respond to changes in the way other types of traffic does: if certain journeys become less convenient a proportion of them will either no longer be made, or be made by other modes. In any case the main pinch points for congestion/pollution are the commuter peaks and neither of those types of journeys are concentrated at those times, unlike trips to work and school runs which it's been demonstrated have high potential for mode change especially when an improved environment for walking and cycling is provided, which is a fundamental component of this proposal.

 

[newbie]

Ok.

It's up to about 450 comments, mostly wanting better cycling and pedestrian provision. I've just been through and ticked loads.


sfaics there are calls to block or heavily restrict traffic on all the routes between Herne Hill and both Brixton and Loughborough Junction, so someone somewhere will have a bit of juggling to do.

 

[snowy_again]

Most of the Railton Road comments are about dangerous driving.

 

[Winot]

Most of the Railton Road comments are about dangerous driving.

A very good reason to close it. Easier to regulate that on main routes.

 

[teuchter]

There are loads of comments about dangerous driving and speeding, on nearly all roads.

If there's one thing I'd say that seems to be missing from the proposed scope of the project, it's enforcement of speed limits.

 

[snowy_again]

A very good reason to close it. Easier to regulate that on main routes.

Hmm, I wouldn't necessarily close - just put in better traffic management measures - not speed bumps / tables but more infrastructure to prevent the fast / slow / fast / slow that lots of drivers do.

 

[snowy_again]

But yes, speed enforcement should be a minimum.

 

[Crispy]

enforcement of speed limits

Not in the council's legal power, if I understand it corectly (there's probably some nuances I'm missing)

There was a big report from the Dft on 20mph limits recently and one key finding was that road design had a much larger impact on driver speed than arbitrary limits.

 

[snowy_again]

Wasn't there a proposal to shift that from police to councils recently?

 

[teuchter]

Not in the council's legal power, if I understand it corectly (there's probably some nuances I'm missing)

There was a big report from the Dft on 20mph limits recently and one key finding was that road design had a much larger impact on driver speed than arbitrary limits.

Thanks for posting that, hadn't seen this before.

The bit about enforcement in the 'lessons' conclusion is oddly worded.

The guidance also needs to recognise the concern amongst the public regarding the apparent lack of enforcement, and the general view that the likelihood of being caught exceeding the limit is very small. Where a more proactive enforcement approach by the police is not practical, authorities should be encouraged to consider alternative approaches (e.g. community-based initiatives, use of vehicle activated signs, etc.), which may still require low level involvement of the police.

It seems to take as a given that basically, proper enforcement is unlikely to happen.

Had I written a report that found that people ignored 20mph limits... I'd have thought I might talk a bit more about enforcement.

 

[snowy_again]

Hence the potential shift to other enforcement by councils - where the generated income can go to central or local pots.

With ULEZ comes the chance to speed limit / manage in different ways

 

[Winot]

My completely anecdotal take (based on cycling through Brixton daily since 1995) is that residential backstreets have got worse for speeding cars. I wonder whether this is a combination of congestion and speed cameras on main routes and no cameras or other enforcement on back streets. It's particularly bad on long straight roads such as Solon and Branksome (see also Brixton Water Lane).

I accept however that it's very difficult for Lambeth to fix this problem. They don't have the money/power to install cameras everywhere and they don't control the police.

I have added a comment to the website asking for speed bumps on either side of the roads with a cyclist flat route down the middle as on Vauxhall St. That seems to be the most effective configuration.

 

[teuchter]

residential backstreets have got worse for speeding cars.

That's my impression as well - I'd include not-quite-main roads as well.

I feel like I see many more large/powerful/expensive cars around than I used to, too. There seems to be a correlation between that and speeding.

 

[Gramsci]

Ok.

It's up to about 450 comments, mostly wanting better cycling and pedestrian provision. I've just been through and ticked loads.


sfaics there are calls to block or heavily restrict traffic on all the routes between Herne Hill and both Brixton and Loughborough Junction, so someone somewhere will have a bit of juggling to do.

I was LJ neighborhood planning forum. The residents association for the brixton road end of Loughborough road had a lot of ideas for traffic calming on their road.

The Liveable Neighborhood boundary is big.

If every street came up with requests for more traffic calming Im not clear if all these requests will be funded.

I think the initial plan was mainly for central Brixton. All LJ was going to get was a cycle route on Barrington road.

Be interesting to see if this Liveable neighborhood will encompass needs of those outside central Brixton.

Or peoples expectations will be raised and dissapointed.

 

[Winot]

I feel like I see many more large/powerful/expensive cars around than I used to, too. There seems to be a correlation between that and speeding.

Car leasing has enabled this.

My MIL has given up cycling in Leicester (after 45+ years of doing so). The cars are wider (both parked and coming towards her) and there are fewer gaps. She is too scared to cycle now

 

[snowy_again]

Be interesting to see if this Liveable neighborhood will encompass needs of those outside central Brixton.

Or peoples expectations will be raised and dissapointed.

Why do you expect that it can all be fixed in one go?

 

[Gramsci]

Why do you expect that it can all be fixed in one go?

This sounds like what a Council officer would say.

Thinking on this Ive recently been losing my rag or almost losing it.

My time in Brixton I've always tried to engage with the Council. Turning up to consultations etc.

I read up the stuff and try to engage with Council on that level.

The boundary for the Liveable neighborhood wasn't drawn up by the residents of Loughborough road. They found they are included in it. So, like I do, they read what is on the website and thought yes there are plenty of issues with our local roads.

Someone in Council I assume put the boundary line in.

So yes I do think it should be done all at once. Its what , when you read the website, engaging communities should be about.

So what are you implying? That lack money means that some communities who , without asking, are in the Liveable neighborhood shouldn't get works done to make it Liveable?

I don't get what you are asking me.

I didn't propose this scheme.

As Mayor and Council are proposing a Liveable neighborhood then if local communities come up with good idea shouldn't they be implemented?

Or are you saying that money is limited? So only some schemes should be done?

 

[Gramsci]

At meeting last night I did say why wasn't this scheme not dressed up as "Liveable neighborhood" but about stopping rat runs for example. Like Railton road. Which I agree with. Was told by someone present that talking about closing rat runs and road closures was "toxic".

Imo this "liveable neighborhood" concept was dreamed to make reducing car use more palatable.

And that is all car use. Including electric.

 

[Gramsci]

From the discussion last night.

The first free money from Mayor is about I think initial consultation. Like the interactive map.

I did say that the shops in Atlantic road should be individually consulted.

As a matter of fairness.

My chats with two business in central Brixton is that they didn't know about these plans to close Atlantic road. Until it was in local press.

That's wrong imo.

 

[teuchter]

At meeting last night I did say why wasn't this scheme not dressed up as "Liveable neighborhood" but about stopping rat runs for example. Like Railton road. Which I agree with. Was told by someone present that talking about closing rat runs and road closures was "toxic".

Imo this "liveable neighborhood" concept was dreamed to make reducing car use more palatable.

And that is all car use. Including electric.

We have fairly direct evidence in LJ of how proposals to close roads can go down. So, I'm fine with using terminology that emphasises the positive effects of reducing traffic.

 

[snowy_again]

This sounds like what a Council officer would say.

Thinking on this Ive recently been losing my rag or almost losing it.

My time in Brixton I've always tried to engage with the Council. Turning up to consultations etc.

I read up the stuff and try to engage with Council on that level.

The boundary for the Liveable neighborhood wasn't drawn up by the residents of Loughborough road. They found they are included in it. So, like I do, they read what is on the website and thought yes there are plenty of issues with our local roads.

Someone in Council I assume put the boundary line in.

So yes I do think it should be done all at once. Its what , when you read the website, engaging communities should be about.

So what are you implying? That lack money means that some communities who , without asking, are in the Liveable neighborhood shouldn't get works done to make it Liveable?

I don't get what you are asking me.

I didn't propose this scheme.

As Mayor and Council are proposing a Liveable neighborhood then if local communities come up with good idea shouldn't they be implemented?

Or are you saying that money is limited? So only some schemes should be done?

Thanks, that's the first time I've been accused of being like a council officer. You seem to be suggesting doing nothing is better than asking people what they want?

How do you think this will work? So far over 450 comments, 2/3rds of which are suggesting a change to the physical environment and there's an initial £5m budget*. So evidently not enough funds in phase 1 to deliver all the physical changes (should they be the right ones) due to the cost of capital works with TFL and their suppliers.

So how would you go about deciding which ones get implemented and which don't?

*i think from memory.

 

[Gramsci]

We have fairly direct evidence in LJ of how proposals to close roads can go down. So, I'm fine with using terminology that emphasises the positive effects of reducing traffic.

The LJ proposals were dressed in similar way as this Liveable neighborhood concept. Making LJ a destination, linking LJAGs farm with LJAGs Platform project.

The LJ road closures was dressed in this way.

So I agree this is failed strategy.

The interesting thing about hearing the LJ residents was that they want traffic calming. The same group opposed the road closure of Loughborough road.

People I think want traffic reduction.

But it needs sensitive consultation. Listening to people rather than telling them what is going to happen.

 

[Gramsci]

Thanks, that's the first time I've been accused of being like a council officer. You seem to be suggesting doing nothing is better than asking people what they want?

How do you think this will work? So far over 450 comments, 2/3rds of which are suggesting a change to the physical environment and there's an initial £5m budget*. So evidently not enough funds in phase 1 to deliver all the physical changes (should they be the right ones) due to the cost of capital works with TFL and their suppliers.

So how would you go about deciding which ones get implemented and which don't?

*i think from memory.

I didn't say you are like one. I said you sounded like one. This post is the same.

One of my reservations is that I don't think all the concerns/ suggestions in the comments will be addressed.

I think that the plan to do this particular scheme focusing on Atlantic road and building routes into Brixton won't change.

Officers will say what you are. Money is limited. Other ideas are interesting but not really able to be incorporated into the practicalities/ financial constraints of this scheme.

Problem I have is the website is clear on the Liveable neighborhood in theory. A lot of comments are in line with the concept. If one takes it literally.

To answer your question. Its not my problem. If a load of traffic calming suggestions are put in which are technically possible they should all be funded.

Its the Council's fault for making such a wide boundary. They did it go to get the money. The boundary was decided on basis of walking distance to central Brixton. The scheme is about routes to and through central Brixton.

In reality what some comments are about is specific issues on certain roads and estates.

Not about routes to central Brixton or connections.

I'm a resident. Its not my job to decide who gets what.

 

[Gramsci]

Another thing.

Whilst residents, as in LJ, may be against total road closures they aren't against things like the 20mph limit on speed.

Yet this in practice not enforced.

On Loughborough road residents have said traffic doesn't keep to the speed limit.

So if Council want to get residents support it should make sure the 20mph is kept to.

On Loughborough road large goods vehicles and coaches aren't allowed. I didn't know about this. Its regularly ignored.

The Council could make sure things like the 20mph limit is a reality before going for a "liveable neighborhood".

Its one thing that could put the liveable neighborhood idea to mean something. Actually make existing policies function.

 

[thebackrow]

The boundary for the Liveable neighborhood wasn't drawn up by the residents of Loughborough road. They found they are included in it. So, like I do, they read what is on the website and thought yes there are plenty of issues with our local roads.
As Mayor and Council are proposing a Liveable neighborhood then if local communities come up with good idea shouldn't they be implemented? Or are you saying that money is limited? So only some schemes should be done?

To answer your question. Its not my problem. If a load of traffic calming suggestions are put in which are technically possible they should all be funded.

In reality what some comments are about is specific issues on certain roads and estates. Not about routes to central Brixton or connections. I'm a resident. Its not my job to decide who gets what.

Whilst residents, as in LJ, may be against total road closures they aren't against things like the 20mph limit on speed. Yet this in practice not enforced. On Loughborough road residents have said traffic doesn't keep to the speed limit. So if Council want to get residents support it should make sure the 20mph is kept to.

And you still dont understand why you might be considered “part of the awkward squad”?
Engaging with residents is never going to be “clean” as they’re not an amorphous group who all think the same. If the council had gone around and asked every single one of them whether they wanted to be included they would have got both positive and negative answers. Perhaps the decision should have been made only if there was a majority, or a 2/3 majority. Do you ask residents groups? How do you ensure that they’re actually representative and not dominated by a small number of people who dont actually try to represent anyone else’s views?

Without sending this thread completely off track remember that the whole Brexit shitshow is a result of an attempt at direct democracy rather than representative democracy. Asking the people to make a decision on stuff they don't really understand based on misinformation and rumour has its issues.

You’re saying that every suggestion or request from residents must be funded. Who decides what is “a good idea”? What about if there are two suggestions that are in opposition? (one wants a cycle route through the park, another wants cycles banned from the park). What if someone wants a crossing removed because it slows down motor traffic? What if residents make suggestions that evidence says will fail to achieve their objective - traffic calming suggestions that have been tried time and time again without success - surely that would be a waste of money?

Wouldn’t it be a better idea to get residents to help identify the issues in an area and leave the solutions to experts rather than someone without any experience (or is that “top down” - or have we had enough of experts?) What if the solution to the problem that people say they have is something they dont think they want eg, if you don’t want drivers speeding through your area the best solution is to close the road to through traffic, since drivers are less likely to speed at the start or end of their journey and around their neighbours than when they’re taking a shortcut through someone else’s neighbourhood. What about “partial closures” that allow buses, cycles and pedestrians through?

How do you propose making sure 20mph is kept to? Really harsh, regular speed bumps - what about the impact on bus passengers? Speed cameras only seem to work for the 10m or so they cover and can only be installed where there have been road deaths. They’re not allowed to be hidden/covert. The Police haven’t got resource. What about the residents who object to being fined for speeding?

 

[Gramsci]

And you still dont understand why you might be considered “part of the awkward squad”?
Engaging with residents is never going to be “clean” as they’re not an amorphous group who all think the same. If the council had gone around and asked every single one of them whether they wanted to be included they would have got both positive and negative answers. Perhaps the decision should have been made only if there was a majority, or a 2/3 majority. Do you ask residents groups? How do you ensure that they’re actually representative and not dominated by a small number of people who dont actually try to represent anyone else’s views?

Without sending this thread completely off track remember that the whole Brexit shitshow is a result of an attempt at direct democracy rather than representative democracy. Asking the people to make a decision on stuff they don't really understand based on misinformation and rumour has its issues.

You’re saying that every suggestion or request from residents must be funded. Who decides what is “a good idea”? What about if there are two suggestions that are in opposition? (one wants a cycle route through the park, another wants cycles banned from the park). What if someone wants a crossing removed because it slows down motor traffic? What if residents make suggestions that evidence says will fail to achieve their objective - traffic calming suggestions that have been tried time and time again without success - surely that would be a waste of money?

Wouldn’t it be a better idea to get residents to help identify the issues in an area and leave the solutions to experts rather than someone without any experience (or is that “top down” - or have we had enough of experts?) What if the solution to the problem that people say they have is something they dont think they want eg, if you don’t want drivers speeding through your area the best solution is to close the road to through traffic, since drivers are less likely to speed at the start or end of their journey and around their neighbours than when they’re taking a shortcut through someone else’s neighbourhood. What about “partial closures” that allow buses, cycles and pedestrians through?

How do you propose making sure 20mph is kept to? Really harsh, regular speed bumps - what about the impact on bus passengers? Speed cameras only seem to work for the 10m or so they cover and can only be installed where there have been road deaths. They’re not allowed to be hidden/covert. The Police haven’t got resource. What about the residents who object to being fined for speeding?

What I said was this:

If a load of traffic calming suggestions are put in which are technically possible they should all be funded.

So your idea that I'm against experts is wrong.

Now onto Brexit. Your argument is that the referendum was fuelled by misinformation. That it was about asking people about things they don't understand.

I don't know where to start with this parallel. I don't think people are stupid. Since the referendum there has been plenty of argument. Looks to me if there was another referendum now it would still be close.


Using Brexit as a parallel. I find insidious argument. Im a Remainer but the thrust of a lot of Remain argument is that some people shouldn't really be asked their opinion as they are ignorant, stupid and therefore easily swayed by "misinformation". Had this line put to me couple of days ago.

If only we could go back to the days of centre ground politics run by evidence based policy. As under the New Labour third way.

The Brixton Liveable neighborhood covers half of Loughborough Junction for example. What should happen is that ideas of for Street calming in LJ should be funded. I'm afraid that this project is going to be about central Brixton. All the proposals look like that its about this.


A parallel to Brexit is what happened in LJ over the road closures. This had been building up for a number of years. Estate residents got the chance to reject the proposals of the Council, "experts" and LJAG. All of whom they saw as the middle classes imposing their ideas on them. That I think is a parallel to Brexit. Working class people who had not been listened to for years and ignored gave the local establishment a good kicking.

Yet people in LJ do want traffic calming. But they want a say in it. As I've posted up.

There is imo not to much democracy but a proven lack of it in Lambeth. The LJ road attempted road closures- some of which I supported- failed.

See this over Council led estate "regeneration" as in Cressingham Gardens.

And I keep being told by Council that this is a Coop Council.