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

[Aristocrat]

By whom? I can believe it was too expensive in the past but I don't imagine that the main tech is all that different from what is now being used to monitor the gates (which three months on they still have not fitted in St Matthews Road). But I don't know.

I suspect any resistance from the council on the grounds of cost will not be because of the cost of tech, but because of the cost of staff time in handling endless requests for exemptions, resolving mistakes made by the tech, and general administration of the system. I doubt it's straightforward. Remember that it costs £60m a year to run the congestion charge. That's recoverable but only because the aim is to charge drivers that enter the CC zone. Lambeth is trying to stop cars going though filters so if the LTN works, it won't generate any revenue, but will still cost lots to administer.

 

[teuchter]

Here are some of those 'low traffic levels' in an area that just had the LTN taken out.

I can see that all obstruction has now been removed from the path of emergency vehicles and everything's sorted.

 

[co-op]

Here are some of those 'low traffic levels' in an area that just had the LTN taken out.

Perfect example of the nonsense. Roads at capacity are always subject to random jams like this. And roads always tend to revert to capacity. So the choice is not “flowing roads vs jammed roads” it’s “cars vs flowing roads” . You can have one or the other in cities, even American cities with 8, 10 lane roads, same thing happens.

But BICYCLES!

 

[co-op]

I can see that all obstruction has now been removed from the path of emergency vehicles and everything's sorted.

Yeah funny how suddenly no one
gives a shit about ambulances when it’s cars blocking the road.

 

[teuchter]

Maybe the suspension of the Wandsworth schemes is a blessing in disguise as it will form a useful demonstration that the LTNs weren't in fact causing most of the traffic jams.

 

[editor]

Here are some of those 'low traffic levels' in an area that just had the LTN taken out.

Look at the size of that fucking ridiculous Land Rover tank.

 

[co-op]

Look at the size of that fucking ridiculous Land Rover tank.

One of the great under-rated capacity reductions of the last 25 years is the huge increase in the size of cars. It’s partly why so many 4 lane roads in Lambeth are now 2 lane - Wandsworth Rd Camberwell Rd etc - you literally can’t fit two Chelsea tractors side by side on them. Drivers did that to themselves.

But LTNs!

 

[Brassed off]

Here are some of those 'low traffic levels' in an area that just had the LTN taken out.

yep! That’s shit! I think cars have to be priced off the road.

 

[teuchter]

yep! That’s shit! I think cars have to be priced off the road.

So how is this going to help the shops whose business you claim is being killed because they rely on people being able to drive to them?

 

[Ol Nick]

I can't keep up with this thread but this is the best website I have found for quiet cycling routes: Journey Planner | Cycling UK

 

[Brassed off]

Why bother post up more “arguments” when you haven’t tried coming back on a single point I’ve raised with you? I’d go with the “worse than the Nazis” line if I were you, it’s got more zing. Stupid and offensive for sure, but GREAT zing.

I’m perfectly entitled to post, my point are as valid as yours. You don’t want to really talk about it just drive ppl away who disagree for fear they might just have a conversation with someone who is sitting on the fence. ‘Disapearing Traffic’ paper &councils own Waltham Forest report anyone who is unsure read ‘Little Ninja’ on Twitter if your still not convinced ask shop keeper on the roads that have been cut off how they are doing. The issues that are being raised in Ferndale, Railton, Eailing, Streatham, Crystal Palace ect and very soon Tulse Hill are pretty universal, right down to the % in trade businesses talk of loosing. Perhaps they are all lying. Or perhaps a more inclusive rethink to balance concerns of entire community is needed. Now you hurry up with your inevitable sarky repost! Everyone is waiting......

 

[Not a Vet]

I could sort of understand your argument about the loss of passing trade by areas becoming quieter if we all lived somewhere where there wasn’t another shop literally 5 minutes further away. In Railton and other local streets there are a number of local shops where trade is down since the scheme started but I’m assuming the demand is still there, i.e. everyone still shops they just go elsewhere or by a different means, home delivery for example. It may well be that one of the casualties of these schemes is the loss of these shops and councils might decide that this is or isn’t an acceptable cost but until they test them and all the other positives and negatives, what’s the alternative? Same old rat runs, selfish speeding drivers and pollution for everyone. It’s certainly a divisive measure but you could argue that about a number of issues in society at the moment

 

[co-op]

I’m perfectly entitled to post, my point are as valid as yours. You don’t want to really talk about it just drive ppl away who disagree for fear they might just have a conversation with someone who is sitting on the fence. ‘Disapearing Traffic’ paper &councils own Waltham Forest report anyone who is unsure read ‘Little Ninja’ on Twitter if your still not convinced ask shop keeper on the roads that have been cut off how they are doing. The issues that are being raised in Ferndale, Railton, Eailing, Streatham, Crystal Palace ect and very soon Tulse Hill are pretty universal, right down to the % in trade businesses talk of loosing. Perhaps they are all lying. Or perhaps a more inclusive rethink to balance concerns of entire community is needed. Now you hurry up with your inevitable sarky repost! Everyone is waiting......

Mate I posted up a whole report which goes right through all the issues to do with local businesses and cars, you haven't bothered read it - just the headlines would do, neither have you answered a single question about capacity and why - if as you say when capacity goes down we get jams, why is it then that when capacity goes up WE STILL GET JAMS? If reducing capacity = jams, then increasing it should get rid of them, right? But it doesn't.

What does this tell us?

I'll say it's because people drive to the level of hassle and inconvenience that they can tolerate; so the more capacity the higher the demand, therefore we end up where we started but just with shittier urban environments in multiple ways - pollution, CO2, noise, ugliness, and of course the exclusion of all other modes of transport in order to accommodate this failed system.

So I'll ask again; if you think increasing capacity is the way to go, what should we do? Get rid of bus lanes? Bring back the 4 lane urban motorways planned for CHL and South Lambeth Rd? Cut a new relief road across Brockwell Park? What's your plan? Have you got one? Are you just going to wiffle and leg it again?

 

[Gramsci]

If you are accusing me of misquoting Rees Mogg, here is the quote, in an answer to Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)

Business of the House - Thursday 17 September 2020 - Hansard - UK Parliament

Hansard record of the item ' Business of the House' on Thursday 17 September 2020.

hansard.parliament.uk

I am absolutely fine with posting up twitter posts from BBC journalists, like I said if you think it's made up then I can't really help you.

I keep saying I'm not implying the quotes are made up.

I keep saying Im not saying the BBC twitter was made up

So please dont say what you think Im saying when Ive told you several times Im not saying that,

I've made a reasonable request and you and you have refused to answer it.

Looked at the Hansard. I assume the Rees Mogg quote is somewhere in it.

 

[Gramsci]

I was talking to someone who has shop on Coldharbour lane. Lives in South London.

Railton LTN has meant traffic has been displaced onto Coldharbour Lane.

He can see a lot more traffic.

 

[Gramsci]

If a shop in an LTN looks like closing down due to loss of passing trade.

If the Council think this is ok when balanced against some kind of benchmark of positive outcomes then it should be upfront and say so.

It should present a report at end of the temporary period with the positives and negatives of each LTN.

It should show a methodology where these positives and negatives are presented and how they are balanced out.

If a Greater Good argument is used then it should be set out publicly and explained.

The Council for example could say X business in an LTN lost this amount of income. It is under threat of closure.. But this is balanced out by XYZ positives from the LTN. So its unfortunate that this persons business could fail/ is under stress.. But it was for the greater good.

They were unable to adapt to the new business environment.

Which is unfortunate but that is how society progresses.

How does that sound to the pro LTN supporters here?

 

[sleaterkinney]

I keep saying I'm not implying the quotes are made up.

I keep saying Im not saying the BBC twitter was made up

So please dont say what you think Im saying when Ive told you several times Im not saying that,

I've made a reasonable request and you and you have refused to answer it.

Looked at the Hansard. I assume the Rees Mogg quote is somewhere in it.

I have, it was in my original post that he told parliament and I have just linked to the record, are you just being awkward now?

 

[Gramsci]

I have, it was in my original post that he told parliament and I have just linked to the record, are you just being awkward now?

You did not put link from Hansard to show that in your original post. Post 2289.

 

[mbyrde12]

If a shop in an LTN looks like closing down due to loss of passing trade.

If the Council think this is ok when balanced against some kind of benchmark of positive outcomes then it should be upfront and say so.

It should present a report at end of the temporary period with the positives and negatives of each LTN.

It should show a methodology where these positives and negatives are presented and how they are balanced out.

If a Greater Good argument is used then it should be set out publicly and explained.

The Council for example could say X business in an LTN lost this amount of income. It is under threat of closure.. But this is balanced out by XYZ positives from the LTN. So its unfortunate that this persons business could fail/ is under stress.. But it was for the greater good.

They were unable to adapt to the new business environment.

Which is unfortunate but that is how society progresses.

How does that sound to the pro LTN supporters here?

This thread has already covered this before but how can you attribute it to the LTN? A local corner shop that did great at the height of lockdown because people were barely going further than 200m from their home is obviously going to take more in that period than when lockdown restrictions ease and people start going to shop at Sainsbury's or Tesco again.

 

[Gramsci]

This thread has already covered this before but how can you attribute it to the LTN? A local corner shop that did great at the height of lockdown because people were barely going further than 200m from their home is obviously going to take more in that period than when lockdown restrictions ease and people start going to shop at Sainsbury's or Tesco again.

Im not attributing anything.

As the Council had brought in temporary LTNs under its pandemic powers its up to the Council to to produce the data so that locals can take a view on the LTNs.

Its got nothing to do with me

 

[sleaterkinney]

You did not put link from Hansard to show that in your original post. Post 2289.

It’s in my original post ffs.


“We really need to discourage councils from their war against the motorist,” Leader of the House of Commons Jacob Rees-Mogg told parliament, September 17.

 

[Gramsci]

It’s in my original post ffs.


“We really need to discourage councils from their war against the motorist,” Leader of the House of Commons Jacob Rees-Mogg told parliament, September 17.

thats not a link to the actual quote.

You only put Hansard link after a lot of asking.

You just saying told parliament means nothing in the original post.

 

[teuchter]

If a shop in an LTN looks like closing down due to loss of passing trade.

...then you have to try and make sure that this is the real reason, before d

thats not a link to the actual quote.

The link is in sleaterkinney's post just up there^^ somewhere. This is getting a bit tedious.

 

[Gramsci]

...then you have to try and make sure that this is the real reason, before d

The link is in sleaterkinney's post just up there^^ somewhere. This is getting a bit tedious.

As you are so interested read all the posts.

Im not being tedious or difficult.

Take the issue up with sleaterkinney

I referenced the relevant posts. Which you refer to as "somewhere".

 

[sleaterkinney]

thats not a link to the actual quote.

You only put Hansard link after a lot of asking.

You just saying told parliament means nothing in the original post.

Fucking hell.

Where do you find out what happens in parliament. Ridiculous.

 

[Gramsci]

...then you have to try and make sure that this is the real reason, before d

The link is in sleaterkinney's post just up there^^ somewhere. This is getting a bit tedious.

If you read my post on effect of shops correctly I dont know why you are saying I have to try.

Im not putting in LTNs nor have I been asked about there implementation.

Im just a local person. Not a Cllr.

My post was putting a suggestion as to how the Council could evaluate effect on local business.

Seemed reasonable suggestion to me.

What about it do you have a problem?

Im just suggesting how this issue could be evaluated.

Could be some local business adapt and prosper.

I do think some proper analysis need to be done.

 

[Gramsci]

Fucking hell.

Where do you find out what happens in parliament. Ridiculous.

Nope. Parliament is a busy place. I havent time to search. You posted the quote. I asked for link to actual quote.

 

[sleaterkinney]

Nope. Parliament is a busy place. I havent time to search. You posted the quote. I asked for link to actual quote.

Well now you have it, we can all sleep well.

 

[madolesance]

And here’s the next LTNs!

 

[sparkybird]

If you read my post on effect of shops correctly I dont know why you are saying I have to try.

Im not putting in LTNs nor have I been asked about there implementation.

Im just a local person. Not a Cllr.

My post was putting a suggestion as to how the Council could evaluate effect on local business.

Seemed reasonable suggestion to me.

What about it do you have a problem?

Im just suggesting how this issue could be evaluated.

Could be some local business adapt and prosper.

I do think some proper analysis need to be done.

I don't think anyone here is saying that proper analysis shouldn't be done. But rather that with multiple factor's involved at present eg Covid, WFH, return to work, end of lockdown, introduction of LTNs, it's going to be pretty difficult to attribute fall/rise in business to any one thing.
Chatting to my local shop owners they are both keen to see LTN introduced as it will mean more on foot/bike customers as the cars using the road as a rat run don't tend to stop to buy anything, and there's no parking either.