Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

That is a very fun thought experiment, I like it.
Indeed, if the pavement ran right up to the building line, ignoring the vestigal front gardens that are remnants of Victorian town planning no longer fit for purpose, Croxted Road would be wide enough for a 2m pavement, 1.5m bike lane, 3.2m bus lane and 3m general lane in each direction, with space left over for separating kerbs, and regular wider spots for bus stops, parking bays etc.

Sieze Front Gardens For The People Now!

View attachment 360568
 
Indeed, if the pavement ran right up to the building line, ignoring the vestigal front gardens that are remnants of Victorian town planning no longer fit for purpose, Croxted Road would be wide enough for a 2m pavement, 1.5m bike lane, 3.2m bus lane and 3m general lane in each direction, with space left over for separating kerbs, and regular wider spots for bus stops, parking bays etc.

Sieze Front Gardens For The People Now!

View attachment 360568
I don't think the solution lies in tarmacking over gardens and making roads even wider!

*I'm aware you're not being serious here, btw
 
Is this based on some kind of actual before/after measurements? Can you link us to the source of the info?
Hmm can't find it now, but if you go on their feed most of the posts are anti pollution, including being pro road charging and complaining about the extra inequality, roads inside Dulwich LTN having high car ownership, lots of out of towners coming in for school run, etc. Etc.

Nothing about the fundamental rights of drivers, freedom and all the usual looney stuff
 
It may be the case that these people are completely wrong and the LTN has actually benefited them, but the argument has not been won. Loads of anti LTN signs all down the road, take a look on street view.
 
That's strange isn't it. You'd think that they'd make such information readily accessible. I've never been able to find it either.

I wonder why?
I have no idea if their sources are accurate, but they do bandy about a few facts and figures in support of their stance. Make of these what you will.



 
I don't think the solution lies in tarmacking over gardens and making roads even wider!

*I'm aware you're not being serious here, btw
No I'm dead serious. These roads were designed "when it was all fields round here" and the houses were trying to look like compressed versions of big houses sitting in a plot of private land. But now many of them are subdivided into flats, and the road is a busy arterial route. In Amsterdam this is exactly how the busy arterial roads are laid out (although often the public transport runs in the center lanes when it's trams instead of buses).

The amount of hard landscaping is identical, it's just that all the useless bits in front of the buildings could be put to public use.

The earlier example of Coldharbour Lane is even more egregious. It's a major orbital route and over half the space between buildings is useless. So much of London was laid out this way, it's easy to think that it's normal and good. Return that useless private land to the public realm. Seize front gardens now.
 
No I'm dead serious. These roads were designed "when it was all fields round here" and the houses were trying to look like compressed versions of big houses sitting in a plot of private land. But now many of them are subdivided into flats, and the road is a busy arterial route. In Amsterdam this is exactly how the busy arterial roads are laid out (although often the public transport runs in the center lanes when it's trams instead of buses).

The amount of hard landscaping is identical, it's just that all the useless bits in front of the buildings could be put to public use.

The earlier example of Coldharbour Lane is even more egregious. It's a major orbital route and over half the space between buildings is useless. So much of London was laid out this way, it's easy to think that it's normal and good. Return that useless private land to the public realm. Seize front gardens now.
I'd rather see private gardens with trees'n'flowers'n'shit that a never ending sea of asphalt, thanks.

Burt if it's already been paved over for their shitty cars, then it should be turned into a public garden. By law.
 
I have no idea if their sources are accurate, but they do bandy about a few facts and figures in support of their stance. Make of these what you will.
We started out with your statement that these groups had perfectly legitimate reasons to be unhappy with the effects of LTNs, for example that "illegal" levels of air pollution are being experienced at schools.

And on questioning we've arrived at "they do bandy about a few facts and figures in support of their stance".

Well, that's how these groups operate, they'll throw a few numbers about on twitter, with no link to the original source. We have no idea whether these figures are "facts" nor do we know if they are cherry-picked or presented with significant context omitted.

Their strategy seems to have worked on you - you clearly haven't checked out their claims, which you seem happy to accept at face value and to repeat on here.
 
We started out with your statement that these groups had perfectly legitimate reasons to be unhappy with the effects of LTNs, for example that "illegal" levels of air pollution are being experienced at schools.

And on questioning we've arrived at "they do bandy about a few facts and figures in support of their stance".

Well, that's how these groups operate, they'll throw a few numbers about on twitter, with no link to the original source. We have no idea whether these figures are "facts" nor do we know if they are cherry-picked or presented with significant context omitted.

Their strategy seems to have worked on you - you clearly haven't checked out their claims, which you seem happy to accept at face value and to repeat on here.
Nonsense, I don't take any of this stuff at face value. You were asking for some examples of what they post, so I provided.

I believe things are more nuanced and messy than LTNs being universally good for everyone.

It's important to think about how they can be implemented in a way that leaves as few people behind and creates as little inequality as possible.

I can understand why you are being grumpy and I empathise. Twitter is a cesspool of stupid opinions. But you did ask.
 
These groups are disingenuous liars - they campaigned for the timed restrictions to be shortened, and then claim that the increased traffic as a result is a sign that the scheme is failing..


This looks like a fuller picture on traffic across roads in the area - note the antis claim EDG has increased - the section by the school hasn't, that's decreased. The bit thats busier is at the Lordship Lane end where there used to be a nasty rat run through a side street to cut off a corner.


Croxted Road has less traffic. There is congestion, but another thing I've not seen any evidence of is that more congested peak hour traffic has resulted in worse pollution that a larger volume moving through.

Both the Lambeth and Southwark schemes have been made permanent - yet they're still asking for them to be removed or weakened. They need to move on from that - they're now campaigning for traffic to be increased on every one of those roads thats shown a reduction. There might well be some people who genuinely want less motor traffic on all roads, but their unholy alliance includes so many petrolheads that they can't talk about any measures that would actually be effective.

Phrases like "It's important to think about how they can be implemented in a way that leaves as few people behind and creates as little inequality as possible." are meaningless unless you can say what you’d do differently and still achieve the same
- because normally when you dig it's "do nothing until I can have a unicorn".
 
Last edited:
Here you go. “A better way”. Try working out what the chair of the campaign for better transport would actually do. I can’t. He’s still talking about 20mph as if we’re not a 20mph borough.

Also. I can see the filter outside her shop - you can still drive there if you want. there’s a cost of living crisis. Might there be a far more likely reason a travel agency had falling income?

 
Last edited:
The council agreed with them and shortened the timed restrictions, as well as opening some of the closed off bits to emergency vehicles.

The fact they're still campaigning is a bit silly, the ship has sailed.
 
Here's "clean air for all Dulwich" seemingly dismissing ULEZ, CPZs, and road pricing as solutions. It seems that their only concrete proposal is to remove the LTNs. It's a bit of an old tweet - maybe they've come up with a better proposed solution in the meantime?

 
The council agreed with them and shortened the timed restrictions, as well as opening some of the closed off bits to emergency vehicles.

The fact they're still campaigning is a bit silly, the ship has sailed.
They’re still campaigning because they’re NIMBY arseholes.
 
Awaits the comments section filling up with incandescent rage

There are cabbies on twitter having a meltdown about this because they think every car parking space in London is going to be ripped out for cycle lanes and flowerbeds :D
 
I got this headline sent to me this morning from Sleepless Seatle. A very old fashioned solution we campaigned for in Manchester when I was a student in the 70s. Not a whiff of interest from anyone close to power in the UK
Mind you passing round the Moorlands Estate, as one does (not an LTN or ever likely to be) its conspicuous how parked up it all is. Not a piece of concrete driveway without a car on it! As my old Gran used to say - "Looks at them Jags on Lancaster Avenue! (our local council estate). I doubt most of our car owners would even use a free pass in preference to a drive to the shops.
 
I got this headline sent to me this morning from Sleepless Seatle. A very old fashioned solution we campaigned for in Manchester when I was a student in the 70s. Not a whiff of interest from anyone close to power in the UK
Mind you passing round the Moorlands Estate, as one does (not an LTN or ever likely to be) its conspicuous how parked up it all is. Not a piece of concrete driveway without a car on it! As my old Gran used to say - "Looks at them Jags on Lancaster Avenue! (our local council estate). I doubt most of our car owners would even use a free pass in preference to a drive to the shops.
Moorlands estate doesn’t need an LTN as it was designed pretty much as one no? No through traffic as only exits are to Coldharbour Lane. It also has low car ownership with about 60% of householders not having a car or van.
 
Responses so far are fully in accord with car industry requirements - don't get rid of cars - just restrict their use.
BTW love the way Raphael House on Coldharbour Lane (also Metropolitan like Moorlands) was rebuilt with car parking on the ground floor to replace a furniture store.
london-fire-brigade-second-brixton-riots-7637157.jpg.webp

Raphael House.png
 
I got this headline sent to me this morning from Sleepless Seatle. A very old fashioned solution we campaigned for in Manchester when I was a student in the 70s. Not a whiff of interest from anyone close to power in the UK
Mind you passing round the Moorlands Estate, as one does (not an LTN or ever likely to be) its conspicuous how parked up it all is. Not a piece of concrete driveway without a car on it! As my old Gran used to say - "Looks at them Jags on Lancaster Avenue! (our local council estate). I doubt most of our car owners would even use a free pass in preference to a drive to the shops.
It doesn’t work. You need to make owning and using a car more difficult (parking and road restrictions) and expensive as well as making alternatives better and cheaper. Carrots without sticks are not effective (it’s what we’ve done for the last 30 years - please cycle. Please don’t drive.)

 
Reposted from another thread

Looks like Lib Dem Oxford is experimenting with traffic cameras to control traffic a la LTN but have run into trouble with the Tory Press and QAnon/Twitterati.

I am sorry not to have taken my camera when I went to a concert in Lib dem Surbiton on Saturday.
I used to work there in the 1980s - and was amazed to see how the station has now been restored to art deco standards - at least on the outside.
Not only that the five-way traffic junction outside the station grounds has NO TRAFFIC LIGHTS.
And there are "give away to pedestrians" marking on the roads at the junction - which actually work!
How Democratic - naturally free flowing traffic and pedestrians without having to wait a Stalinist Lambeth/Southwark style 10 minutes for the lights before you can cross the road at a busy junction.
st marks hill junction.png
 
Responses so far are fully in accord with car industry requirements - don't get rid of cars - just restrict their use.
BTW love the way Raphael House on Coldharbour Lane (also Metropolitan like Moorlands) was rebuilt with car parking on the ground floor to replace a furniture store.
london-fire-brigade-second-brixton-riots-7637157.jpg.webp

View attachment 360773
How would you suggest taking peoples cars away? Doesn’t it make sense to make it so difficult and expensive to own people decide it’s not worth it? Note that the more recent blocks on the road were built without parking and no permits for residents- bemoaning old crap policy is a bit pointless
 
Back
Top Bottom