Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists
- Thread starter teuchter
- Start date
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
Should be a TFL thing as the Circulars are red routes under their control.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
It's fairly well known and evidenced that if you provide extra capacity for traffic, it'll fill up with new traffic. That seems (for some reason) to be less controversial than the idea that if you reduce capacity, then some of the traffic disappears.
Winot
I wholeheartedley agree with your viewpoint
I guess that the important point is to prove that the traffic that fills the new road is the result of new journeys rather than being decanted from another road. Otherwise you could posit that there was a fixed volume of traffic and that new roads spread it evenly (the entropy model). That would be consistent with the anti-LTN argument that restricting access to one road resulted in increase on another (and no evaporation).
(I am pretty sure that there is evidence for new journey creation)
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Say you have road A, and alternative routes B C and D. And let's say that ignoring congestion, road A is the fastest, either because of directness or road design. Then if traffic spreads evenly, it'll tend to fill up road A until the level congestion means it's no faster than B C or D (because if it gets slower than those other routes, why would people continue to prefer it).
Then you double the capacity of road A, and you observe that the extra capacity fills up, until things are moving at about the same speed as before.
And you say, there you are, the extra capacity has filled up and we just have twice as many people using the road but moving at the same rate.
If someone's then going to argue, well, that's true but these aren't new journeys - they are displaced from alternative routes B C and D - then that assumes that B C and D are now emptier than before. But we know that A has filled up, until the point that it's barely any faster than the others. And we know that it's about the same speed as it was before. So therefore surely B, C and D must be much the same as before. In other words they can't emptied of traffic, because if they had, then drivers would be taking advantage of that and not filling up road A to the point where things are no faster than before.
So to me it doesn't make sense, if you observe that the level of congestion on the main road stays fairly constant regardless if whether you increase or decrease its capacity, to believe that traffic is a fixed quantity and is simply being spread evenly around the system. And that seems to be pretty much what is observed in any urban area - like London - where the roads are basically at capacity, indicating that there must be latent demand for more.
If you're somewhere rural, say, with largely empty roads which aren't anywhere near their full capacity, then obviously the same doesn't apply. Doubling the width of that road probably won't induce extra journeys because there's no congestion that currently suppresses latent demand.
editor
hiraethified
I know nothing of theories but I do know that vast extra volumes of fumes are being decanted into Coldharbour Lane every day.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Nothing wrong with incremental changes due to resident pressure.
Take Loughborough Junction the Council decided to impose road closures on LJ without getting local support beforehand.
( btw the officer in charge of the BLN idea stated that the Council had learnt from the LJ failure. That this time they would consult and get people onside before implementing a scheme. This was pre pandemic)
I know that some residents wanted traffic calming measures but not closure of Loughborough road. This could have been done and then built on. Instead Council tried to impose an unwanted scheme on the local residents.
Interestingly enough when the Brixton Liveable Neighbouurhood was first put forward by the Council I know one residents group in LJ who were keen to be involved. They wanted traffic calming. They had opposed the Council trying to impose the previous scheme. The idea that this is clearcut your either a petrol head or for it is something Ive been objecting to here.
It is possible to talk to communites and find out what they want. Rather than tell them what is good for them.
The argument that has been put here by the pro 100% LTN advocates is that anything less than a "proper" LTN is backsliding.
My experience of the failed LJ road closures is that its wrong to divide people between good green people and petrol heads.
In LJ it would have been possible to start to bring in traffic calming/ ending rat runs. But that is not what the advocates of full on LTNs want here on this thread.
Been stated here early on this thread that the Council should just get on with it and impose LTNs. That incremental changes arent good enough. Consultation just holds things up.
Last edited:
thebackrow
Considerably more Brixton.
Just going back to your contemporaneous comments about the Loughbrough Road scheme
“How supporting unrestricted access to roads for motorised traffic ( for in practise that is the position of those here who opposed the road closures) is supporting the working class is beyond me.“
“For example one of the earlier discussions here was that these road closures were in working class areas and why not reduce through traffic by doing it in "middle class" areas. Such as at Hinton road? To deter through traffic?"
“What has happened is that the Council has now caved in completely to the motorist. There will be a further statutory consultation on the "improvements" that the new steering group are formulating. My opinion is that its a farce. All suggestions to reduce road traffic have been ruled out of the discussion. So the new improvements will be motorist first, pedestrians and cyclists second.”
“Walthamstow "mini Holland”. Waltham Forest Council pushed it through despite opposition. This article suggests its becoming a success. Lambeth have effectively ditched there manifesto committment to making Lambeth a cycle and pedestrian friendly borough. I have seen the Walthamstow Mini Holland as a friend of mine lives in it. It basically stops rat runs. “
Now a few years later the "improvements" suggested by the steering group that were "caving in completely to the motorist" were right all along and the LTNs you were lauding as the answer to stopping rat runs (based on your experience of Waltham Forest) are a mistake. Waltham Forest pushed it through despite opposition and Lambeth should have done it back then but now they ARE doing that that's wrong too. A few speed humps and everything would have been fine - everyone would have been happily and traffic would have magically reduced despite speed humps never having been effective anywhere in the past.
bish bosh, up the workers!
Last edited:
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
I must say you disgust me as a poster on this thread.
You are a nasty piece of work,
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Just a big joke for you. I live here and am involved in the local community.
You don't have a clue.
Ive spent years being involved in community.
Its all so simple for you. Actually talking to people and dealing with them and it is not so clear cut.
Last edited:
thebackrow
Considerably more Brixton.
As soon as anyone challenges you on the logic of your own arguments you attack them personally. Get a grip. All I've done is quote your own posts back at you - how is that nasty? By implication you're suggesting I'm not involved in the community and I don't live here. That's pretty insulting.
However, I do find your instinctive opposition to ANYTHING pretty funny. Are you for anything? Do you have a set of values you can evaluate something against as I can't work it out. Sorry, it's some notion of "the workers:" or "the working class" - what does that even mean? I once saw a definition that decided US workers into those who showered before they went to work and those who showered when they got home. Is this decided on income - I know plumbers who earned way more than I ever did when I did a corporate office job - or some other criteria.
You repeatedly claim that you're "open minded" about the current council schemes and just object to the method of consultation but then post nothing but negative comments about them.
cuppa tee
Well-Known Member
something that sticks in my mind from that era was the stated aim of ‘improving the retail offer’ and the accompanying graphic of a boutique craft ale bistro plonked in a row of shops, it was plain the project was a double edged sword with the application of a closure at the railway bridge to repel the oi polloi and gentrification a go go on the coldharbour lane junction a big part of it.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Your posts are a deliberate provocation. And no I dont like you as a poster.
Your post shows you have not a clue about class.
I know you think I have instinctive opposition. All this means is that I don't fall in line with what you think.
Reminds me of how some Cllrs and Council officers think.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
That is rubbish.
Ive posted previously about the Railton LTN that it looks like reducing traffic on Railton road has support for example in the local area.
Its you that has a closed mind
Your the polar opposite to the "petrol heads" and imo no better than them.
thebackrow
Considerably more Brixton.
Every one of your own posts is provocative. I'm calling out what either looks like massive hypocrisy and instinctive opposition to anything that the council do or a major change in your thinking. Perhaps you could address and explain that rather than just attacking me?
To me your view of class seems stuck in the 1970s, or maybe even the 1870s. It doesn't reflect the working world I've seen around me as an adult.
That doesn't make sense - I disagree with many decisions and policies of the council. Your consistent position is that they're wrong - whether it was LJ in 2015, LTNs now, bollards outside the Ritzy. Your instictive position seems to be to oppose anything done by Lambeth Council.. Sorry Nu Labour co-operative council. Maybe I've missed something - link me to some posts where you've agreed with council policies and prove me wrong?
Is this the same high quality data we got when you asked your mate in a shop on Coldharbour Lane whether traffic had increased?
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
You have been attacking me personally for ages. Accusing me of hyprocrisy.
So now Its onto what I say on other threads.
BTW my view of class is based on what I see around me plus my reading. Its not stuck as you argue in the past. Its very much part of the present.
Last edited:
co-op
But....but cLoWnFiSh....
Right here is a perfect example of daft car use, in a half sensible world no children should be being driven to school. There are a hundred ways we don’t live in that world - New Labours stupid “choice agenda” meant that children end up going to school miles from where they live etc - but children who want to be able to walk or cycle to their local school should always be given priority over rat runners. I can’t see any argument for cars that justifies taking that away.
Torpid Scorpion
Basket case
I've got to say: compared to the 'discussion' on Nextdoor this thread is a model of politeness and decorum.
Why do all debates about automobiles descend into rancour? Is it the cars doing it? I think cars must drive people nuts.
The 'one' astroturf groups are all taking the public position that the LTNs must be removed, as opposed to tweaked. Thats a reactionary position that needs resisting. Dont even get me started on what we have seen and heard reported about the right wing bile they engage in on their private assbook chats. Proud boys stuff.
FWIW I think Gramsci you've been clear and balanced on what your position is. There are clearly improvements needed and holding the council to account in actually making them would seem a good use of energy.
Why do all debates about automobiles descend into rancour? Is it the cars doing it? I think cars must drive people nuts.
The 'one' astroturf groups are all taking the public position that the LTNs must be removed, as opposed to tweaked. Thats a reactionary position that needs resisting. Dont even get me started on what we have seen and heard reported about the right wing bile they engage in on their private assbook chats. Proud boys stuff.
FWIW I think Gramsci you've been clear and balanced on what your position is. There are clearly improvements needed and holding the council to account in actually making them would seem a good use of energy.
Winot
I wholeheartedley agree with your viewpoint
teuchter
je suis teuchter
There's no way that things that work in Japan could simply be assumed to work here - but a couple of years ago I spent a bit of time in Tokyo and it was very interesting to see how transport stuff is done there.
Outside of the centre, the residential areas consist almost entirely of quite small streets. Cars aren't banned from these, but there is a very small amount of traffic on them, and there's certainly no speeding. In many cases there's no distinction between pavement and street. There's no on-street parking (if you have a car you have to somehow fit it onto the already small plot that your house is on). There are a lot of people walking and cycling and these streets are a wonder of calm with absolutely no feeling of stress from motor vehicles. There are enormous bike parking places at many metro stations (and often supermarkets). There are busy main roads that carry a fair bit of traffic but they are quite clearly defined, and often quite segregated by being on raised expressways and so on.
Anyway, what made me think of this is that as far as I can see virtually no-one drives their kids to school. As anyone who's been to Tokyo will know, it's not unusual to see primary school age kids travelling to school by themselves on the metro at rush hour. Or walking by themselves along the streets. The other thing that was notable was that if you go past a nursery at child collecting time there's no logjam of cars - there's pretty much no cars at all, just a crowd of parents waiting either on foot or with bicycles with child seats.
We could have a long discussion about why they manage all this in Tokyo, and there are obviously lots of cultural reasons and other stuff (which is why other European cities are more useful models for what might be possible in the UK), but it struck me that the way things are done there is to some extent generated by the acute lack of space - there simply isn't enough room for people to pick up kids from nursery by car. There's a capacity restriction forced on the system just by the fact that the streets are very small, and they've developed ways of dealing with this, and the result is a way of living in dense urban areas where motor vehicles don't dominate at all, and it's a million times better than the mess we have here, where we give over far too much space to motor vehicles and have to live with the constant traffic all the time.
Nextdoor are taking it all to a new level. What was previously the domain of missing cats and an extended neighbourhood watch is now personal abuse including death threats and has stoked up the nutters who believe anything they read and take direct action
editor
hiraethified
It is an issue that has really turned people against each other. I'm still chuckling at that idiot on Twitter who was convinced that Brixton Buzz was in the employ of Lambeth Council
Winot
I wholeheartedley agree with your viewpoint
The Tokyo model is great. Was really surprised the first time I went at the number of salarymen sedately cycling shopper bikes around the centre.
Central Amsterdam (eg around Jordaan) has a similar streets model. As you say, perhaps due to lack of space.
Torpid Scorpion
Basket case
Don't take my word for it, please. Here are some examples. Its not the people arguing for clean air and quiet streets that are making the debate toxic. Hard to get more recent examples since their boards are closed and they've been booting nonbelievers out.
A few selected from Nextdoor:
Attachments
Similar threads
