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

[teuchter]

Just stop misinterpreting my posts on this thread as anti TN propaganda. I've done nothing of the sort on this thread.

I don't think you're posting anti-LTN propaganda. But in response to the points about who actually needs to drive to the supermarket, and alternatives and so on, you bring up a load of stuff about nationalising food distribution, and the problem being the big supermarkets. I don't disagree that giving planning permission to big supermarkets with car parks causes a problem. But whereas an LTN can be implemented relatively easily and rapidly, the same is not true of fundamentally re-organising food distribution systems, or un-building large supermarkets.

The problem is that this is typical of arguments against LTNs and other, feasibly implementable measures, which are often made in bad faith. People will argue that instead of doing the LTN, some other thing should be done instead, which they know is never going to happen, or is not going to happen any time soon. I don't think you are making these arguments in bad faith, and you are not necessarily saying that the LTNs should not happen, but that's how it can come across.

You say you want a FAIR transition to green economy. So do I and most people commenting on this thread. The immediate opportunity is to take a step towards a "greener economy" which will be an imperfect one, and not as fair as would be the case in an ideal world, but still better than not changing anything.

As for altering the fundamental way food is distributed - if you can find ways to discourage people from doing supermarket shopping by car, then things will change - supermarkets will have more people wanting deliveries (maybe one day Aldi and Lidl will realise they should consider offering this) and local shops ought to do better. I know you won't like that approach in principle because it's one that depends on the market responding to consumer demand, but there's just exactly zero chance in the current climate that the government is going nationalise supermarkets. That's just not something that's going to happen in the timescale that we need to do something about pollution and congestion. So for the purposes of this discussion, it's pretty much a waste of time considering it.

 

[nick]

And again, a Friday at 1.30pm. Yep - that graffitied van too. It did not move from its spot on the yellow line for almost three months. Not a single parking ticket.

View attachment 232345

It my be of interest to you that the white van (LY53 FLR) cant be found on the DVLA "is this car taxed?" website). Perhaps it's not a real plate?.
If it is still there then report it on the lambeth web site as abandoned / untaxed

 

[sparkybird]

Reporting an abandoned vehicle

Report an abandoned vehicle Report an abandoned vehicle on an estate We need to know: the vehicle's colour, make and model the vehicle's registration the exact location of the vehicle

www.lambeth.gov.uk

it's quite hard to find the form on the lambeth website, but I did one recently so saved the page

 

[nick]

This one feeds you through to a shop a neighbour scheme from DFT. For untaxed

Check vehicle tax and report an untaxed vehicle

Lambeth council will not remove a vehicle if it is untaxed, unless it is a public health and safety hazard. Untaxed vehicles are the responsibility of the DVLA. Check if a vehicle is taxed Report an untaxed vehicle

www.lambeth.gov.uk

This one seems to "keep it in the family" as it is Lambeth itself, for abandoned vehicles. I've used this one before and they respond (Unroadworthy cars are often dumped on our road)

Reporting an abandoned vehicle

Report an abandoned vehicle Report an abandoned vehicle on an estate We need to know: the vehicle's colour, make and model the vehicle's registration the exact location of the vehicle

www.lambeth.gov.uk

 

[co-op]

Just stop misinterpreting my posts on this thread as anti TN propaganda. I've done nothing of the sort on this thread.

LOL, I have repeatedly said I know you say that you're not anti-LTN but it's what it looks like, and making facile demands like this one ^^ just makes me think I've probably read your posts right.

 

[co-op]

You say you want a FAIR transition to green economy. So do I and most people commenting on this thread. The immediate opportunity is to take a step towards a "greener economy" which will be an imperfect one, and not as fair as would be the case in an ideal world, but still better than not changing anything.

The thing is this "fair vs green" argument is nonsense in this case. In some cases it's true - case in point, funding solar panels (which are green) but which give a dividend to private solar panel owners which is paid for by a levy on everyone's electricity bill (which takes from the poor to give to those wealthy enough to spend a few thousand pounds of installing solar).

But when it's cars vs active travel (walking, cycling, public transport) then it's not "fair vs green", it's "fair and green vs unfair and ungreen". This idea that LTNs are somehow bad for the poor and good for the rich is just bullshit. Rich people drive cars and they drive more miles. Poor people don't even get access to them. In between there's every other point on the spectrum and anti-bicycle activists like Gramsci will always come up with some example of a squeezed group but it's like tories crying over little old ladies on low incomes paying rates on a great big house and using that tiny group to justify slapping a flat tax like the council tax on us which shifts the tax burden from the rich onto the poor. It's right wing crap.

 

[Rushy]

It my be of interest to you that the white van (LY53 FLR) cant be found on the DVLA "is this car taxed?" website). Perhaps it's not a real plate?.
If it is still there then report it on the lambeth web site as abandoned / untaxed

After trying to get that van removed I submitted an FOI. Lambeth confirmed it belonged to them. They agreed that it was parked in contravention of the current Staff Guidance for Essential Vehicles in that, whilst these are allowed to park on yellow lines and in resident's bays in the course of attending emergencies, they had to observe the same restrictions as everyone else at all other times. It had been used for fly tipping surveillance for a while (not at that location) so that may explain why it did not come up in searches? Or because they decommissioned the van - it was falling apart.

This has been going on for years now - soon after the town hall opened and all departments were moved here from all over the borough. I only use the van as an extreme example because it is such a conspicuous vehicle and was permanently parked on a controlled yellow line. One of the excuses Lambeth uses for a lack of enforcement is that maybe wardens have trouble identifying vehicles in contravention. It stood out like a sore thumb yet still avoided any enforcement for months. Vehicles are typically in good condition and are there for part or a whole day. Sometimes a handful of days. Some are clearly fleet (e.g. noise control's Skodas) - others not. Visitors with permits from neighbouring councils also seem to park there at times - also without enforcement. As I said, individual wardens repeatedly insist they have been told by Lambeth not to ticket Lambeth vehicles.

 

[Jeanette Moo]

Just read on Nextdoor that Lambeth Councillor Tim Briggs is bringing a motion to the next council meeting for all road blockages to be removed, to consult, and to come up with schemes that do not presume an outcome.

 

[sleaterkinney]

Just read on Nextdoor that Lambeth Councillor Tim Briggs is bringing a motion to the next council meeting for all road blockages to be removed, to consult, and to come up with schemes that do not presume an outcome.

No schemes that do not presume an outcome - so only schemes where they don't know what's going to happen?

 

[Gramsci]

anti-bicycle activists like Gramsci

This made me laugh. Out in the rain now on my bike.

 

[co-op]

This made me laugh. Out in the rain now on my bike.View attachment 232404

It was a wind up so I'm glad it made you laugh.

 

[co-op]

After trying to get that van removed I submitted an FOI. Lambeth confirmed it belonged to them. They agreed that it was parked in contravention of the current Staff Guidance for Essential Vehicles in that, whilst these are allowed to park on yellow lines and in resident's bays in the course of attending emergencies, they had to observe the same restrictions as everyone else at all other times. It had been used for fly tipping surveillance for a while (not at that location) so that may explain why it did not come up in searches? Or because they decommissioned the van - it was falling apart.

This has been going on for years now - soon after the town hall opened and all departments were moved here from all over the borough. I only use the van as an extreme example because it is such a conspicuous vehicle and was permanently parked on a controlled yellow line. One of the excuses Lambeth uses for a lack of enforcement is that maybe wardens have trouble identifying vehicles in contravention. It stood out like a sore thumb yet still avoided any enforcement for months. Vehicles are typically in good condition and are there for part or a whole day. Sometimes a handful of days. Some are clearly fleet (e.g. noise control's Skodas) - others not. Visitors with permits from neighbouring councils also seem to park there at times - also without enforcement. As I said, individual wardens repeatedly insist they have been told by Lambeth not to ticket Lambeth vehicles.

I'd be seriously tempted to get hold of my own Denver boots and slap them on a few of these cars/vans, the fact that wardens are literally being told to lay off Lambeth cars is totally out of order.

 

[editor]

In between there's every other point on the spectrum and anti-bicycle activists like Gramsci ...

Mate - he cycles for a living! He doesn't own a car. I can guarantee he cycles more than you every week, so to call him an "anti-bicycle activist" really is spectacularly daft.

 

[co-op]

Mate - he cycles for a living! He doesn't own a car. I can guarantee he cycles more than you every week, so to call him an "anti-bicycle activist" really is spectacularly daft.

It was a wind up! I know he's a cyclist.

 

[co-op]

I can guarantee he cycles more than you every week,

Btw you might be wrong about this bit, I've done some miles in the last year.

 

[editor]

Btw you might be wrong about this bit, I've done some miles in the last year.

I doubt it. He works as a courier so he's covering a lot of distance every single working day. How many days a week do you cycle?

 

[co-op]

I doubt it. He works as a courier so he's covering a lot of distance every single working day. How many days a week do you cycle?

Most - normally every.

 

[teuchter]

Just read on Nextdoor that Lambeth Councillor Tim Briggs is bringing a motion to the next council meeting for all road blockages to be removed, to consult, and to come up with schemes that do not presume an outcome.

Tory councillor from Clapham to the rescue.

 

[mbyrde12]

Tory councillor from Clapham to the rescue.

Can't wait to see this. Is he going to be ranting about champagne socialist cyclists again?

 

[Gramsci]

I don't think you're posting anti-LTN propaganda. But in response to the points about who actually needs to drive to the supermarket, and alternatives and so on, you bring up a load of stuff about nationalising food distribution, and the problem being the big supermarkets. I don't disagree that giving planning permission to big supermarkets with car parks causes a problem. But whereas an LTN can be implemented relatively easily and rapidly, the same is not true of fundamentally re-organising food distribution systems, or un-building large supermarkets.

The problem is that this is typical of arguments against LTNs and other, feasibly implementable measures, which are often made in bad faith. People will argue that instead of doing the LTN, some other thing should be done instead, which they know is never going to happen, or is not going to happen any time soon. I don't think you are making these arguments in bad faith, and you are not necessarily saying that the LTNs should not happen, but that's how it can come across.

You say you want a FAIR transition to green economy. So do I and most people commenting on this thread. The immediate opportunity is to take a step towards a "greener economy" which will be an imperfect one, and not as fair as would be the case in an ideal world, but still better than not changing anything.

As for altering the fundamental way food is distributed - if you can find ways to discourage people from doing supermarket shopping by car, then things will change - supermarkets will have more people wanting deliveries (maybe one day Aldi and Lidl will realise they should consider offering this) and local shops ought to do better. I know you won't like that approach in principle because it's one that depends on the market responding to consumer demand, but there's just exactly zero chance in the current climate that the government is going nationalise supermarkets. That's just not something that's going to happen in the timescale that we need to do something about pollution and congestion. So for the purposes of this discussion, it's pretty much a waste of time considering it.

I really object to the idea that my views can come across as helping the hardline anti LTN side. Thats not my problem.

Previous posts on this thread have drawn parrallels with Brexit supporters and being anti LTN. Reminds me I was in same situation over Brexit. I only just supported Remain as I was not happy about the anti immigration ending free movement side of it. But apart from that I would have supported leaving.

I could see the argument on both sides. I dont like the way anti LTN people are talked about on this thread. Same as way a lot of Remainers saw Brexit voters.

Same with the LTNs. I object to sections of both sides of the argument.

On food. That came up as you mentioned nationalising cars.

In lockdown I was volunteering at the Brixton Emergency Food. A lot of food parcels were going out. Showed to me that food is a big issue. A crisis comes along and a lot of people ( working) suddenly find they can't feed themselves. Food supply is a relevant issue for a lot of people. Its not lefty pie in the sky dreaming stuff. Lot of people in Brixton only just get by.

More immediately relevant ,as lockdown showed,, than road closures.

Realistic measures mean cheap measures. Not surprising the road alterations are being funded by this government.

If ordinary people are going to be persuaded that big changes to economy and society due to climate change and saving the planet then it has to be directly relevant to every day needs. My experience in lockdown is that food supply is a big issue.

 

[ViolentPanda]

A loose version of lacrosse was played in 1100AD. It's one of the toughest, most violent, games in the world. Hardly gentrification.

Played it at school. Makes hockey look like knitting.

 

[sparkybird]

Just read on Nextdoor that Lambeth Councillor Tim Briggs is bringing a motion to the next council meeting for all road blockages to be removed, to consult, and to come up with schemes that do not presume an outcome.

He is Abbeyville Road area, no? Not even an LTN area, although there are streets in his ward which have been blocked off to prevent rat running...like Crescent lane for example.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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?

Lambeth Council (& most other local authorities, seemingly - didn't even bother to do basic traffic flow surveys before putting LTNs in place, so expecting them to do a per business cost/benefit analysis, would be expecting rather a lot, especially given a lack of competence (in Lambeth at least) in making basic business forecasts that bear a degree of closeness to reality.

 

[ViolentPanda]

He is Abbeyville Road area, no? Not even an LTN area, although there are streets in his ward which have been blocked off to prevent rat running...like Crescent lane for example.

No, I think he's Clapham Common - the ward that ends at Cedar's Rd.

 

[madolesance]

Lambeth Council (& most other local authorities, seemingly - didn't even bother to do basic traffic flow surveys before putting LTNs in place, so expecting them to do a per business cost/benefit analysis, would be expecting rather a lot, especially given a lack of competence (in Lambeth at least) in making basic business forecasts that bear a degree of closeness to reality.

So are you suggesting that most Uber drivers/ motorist would make a point of stopping and supporting local businesses? Or just continue through the streets their satnavs have suggested they use? Is that fair for people who live in these areas to be subjected to constant traffic? It not fair for where ever you live! Motor traffic needs to be reduced everywhere. It’s no longer acceptable.

 

[sparkybird]

No, I think he's Clapham Common - the ward that ends at Cedar's Rd.

Thanks, you are right, although it's the ward that contains Abbeyville Road, is not an LTN and does benefit from the Cresent lane road closure to prevent vehicles doing a shortcut from kings avenue

 

[nick]

Traffic calming / blocking has been going on for years without this level of debate - it is just the fact that so much is being done so quickly across London that makes this higher profile.
Many of the previous measures have been, I think due to resident pressure - happy to be corrected
Without looking anything up I can think of the following during the following 20/30 odd years

• Holmewood gardens homezone
• West end of Palace road blocked
• Hillside road to Hitherfield blocked off
• Leigham Vale to Kingsmead road blocked off
• New Park Road / Morrish road calming
• Brixton Hill / Acre lane cut through prevention & 1 way system (Sudbourne /Lambert / Branksome)
• Branksome to Lyham road cut through blocked off
• Bottom of Lyham Road / Kings Avenue 1 way blockage
• Various traffic changes round St Matthews (Tfl, not council)
• Herne Hill / Dulwich Road by the park restyling
• Josephine Ave / Brix Hill block
• Did Stockwell Avenue used to be 2 way?
• Wasn't the triangle around the academy once differently laid out? (TFL again)

And of course congestion charging and now LEZ

Question - when you look at all the above changes, and no doubt many others, has life been made permanently worse for the people that live in the area and the environs or better? Or has it just incrementally reduced the temptation to make short car journeys (it used to be feasible, time wise, to drive from Brix Hill to Tesco Acre Lane ).
Rat runs have become more apparent and busier as the rise of the sat nav means that they are now accessible to all cars and not just those with local knowledge, so they need to be counter-measured (IMHO)

Yes - With such schemes, whether desired or not, it seems logical that pollution (air and congestion) on side roads reduces to the detriment of designated through roads (Acre lane / A205, other A roads) which is bad for the people living on them. This is not good for the people on the main roads, but those roads are more likely designed for the traffic, with crossing points, cameras, traffic lights etc etc: There is less likely to be a 4 year old running into those roads.

If the LTN /calming is done right then I believe that slowly the definition of necessary journey will shift and alternative modes will become relatively more attractive. As discretionary journeys reduce, then there will be more space for necessary car journeys, which surely is the intention ?

 

[teuchter]

Traffic calming / blocking has been going on for years without this level of debate - it is just the fact that so much is being done so quickly across London that makes this higher profile.
Many of the previous measures have been, I think due to resident pressure - happy to be corrected
Without looking anything up I can think of the following during the following 20/30 odd years

• Holmewood gardens homezone
• West end of Palace road blocked
• Hillside road to Hitherfield blocked off
• Leigham Vale to Kingsmead road blocked off
• New Park Road / Morrish road calming
• Brixton Hill / Acre lane cut through prevention & 1 way system (Sudbourne /Lambert / Branksome)
• Branksome to Lyham road cut through blocked off
• Bottom of Lyham Road / Kings Avenue 1 way blockage
• Various traffic changes round St Matthews (Tfl, not council)
• Herne Hill / Dulwich Road by the park restyling
• Josephine Ave / Brix Hill block
• Did Stockwell Avenue used to be 2 way?
• Wasn't the triangle around the academy once differently laid out? (TFL again)

And of course congestion charging and now LEZ

Question - when you look at all the above changes, and no doubt many others, has life been made permanently worse for the people that live in the area and the environs or better? Or has it just incrementally reduced the temptation to make short car journeys (it used to be feasible, time wise, to drive from Brix Hill to Tesco Acre Lane ).
Rat runs have become more apparent and busier as the rise of the sat nav means that they are now accessible to all cars and not just those with local knowledge, so they need to be counter-measured (IMHO)

Yes - With such schemes, whether desired or not, it seems logical that pollution (air and congestion) on side roads reduces to the detriment of designated through roads (Acre lane / A205, other A roads) which is bad for the people living on them. This is not good for the people on the main roads, but those roads are more likely designed for the traffic, with crossing points, cameras, traffic lights etc etc: There is less likely to be a 4 year old running into those roads.

If the LTN /calming is done right then I believe that slowly the definition of necessary journey will shift and alternative modes will become relatively more attractive. As discretionary journeys reduce, then there will be more space for necessary car journeys, which surely is the intention ?

Not one of the commenters on this thread who object to the LTNs on the basis of displaced traffic/pollution is willing to state that all already implemented measures (ie. your list plus others) should be removed. By their logic, air pollution and congestion on main roads would be improved if these long-implemented measures were removed.

So why do they consistently dodge this question? One reason might be that it feels "intuitive" that closing off roads must cause a significant worsening on others - and yet deliberately moving traffic from main roads to residential ones doesn't intuitively feel right either. And they are not willing to question the logic that leads to this conflict. I would argue they are engaging in some form of "omission bias", where they are unwilling to commit to a positive action in either direction. They want to stick with a status quo where harm is done by omitting to do anything.

Another reason might be that they aren't really worried about the displaced pollution and congestion. Their concerns are actually more to do with self interest, but they are hiding behind what they can present as a concern for others' wellbeing.

 

[nick]

We're probably all guilty of self interest. Even if sometimes that extends to what is perceived as a greater good (ie reducing traffic elsewhere makes London a better place and therefore makes my life more pleasant.)

Of course it could be that the implementation of LTNs is a one way street (puntastic). ie putting them in could make other traffic worse, but then removing them doesn't revert things to the halcyon position of yesterday (cf Freakanomics on financial disincentives: removing a fine didn't revert to the original state. here's the paper ). I don't see that though

I am sure the whole spectrum of reasons will be evident in various objectors. Similar for approvers
Without any evidence to back it up - I can't really imagine anyone consciously approving because of the impact on their property value. Most of the objectors in my street seem to be concerned about the impact on the school run or how to drive to Streatham, since I know that those particular people do not have disabilities - then fuck em (and me because it will be harder to drive to Kennedys for supper).

It strikes me that turning one of the relatively wide pavements on the south circular (west of Tulse Hill) into a cycle path (shared with peds or not) would help encourage cycling east <-> west for the nervous. And planting some more trees to suck up the fumes

 

[Crispy]

There's enough road space for segregated bikes lanes on the S.Circular from Clapham to Lordship Lane but there's zero political will (or much money) for that sort of thing. All cycle routes so far have been dedicated to commuters.