Brixton news, rumours and general chat
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
Just been for another blood test at Kings.
Couldn't have it yesterday because Swiftqueue could not accommodate doing a test 12 hours after my medication.
Today - half the seats in the waiting room have been removed.
There is a sort of maître d'hôtel lady conducting the massive queue - and the guy in front of me can't handle the log in terminal - just keeps repeating his ineligible movements - had to fetch his wife/guardian.
I was in and out within 10 minutes - but I had pre-booked, something many "customers" seem unable or unwilling to do.
Under the old system it ran smoothly, all comers served in order maximum wait if very busy 30 minutes.
How much are Dedalus paid for this shit?
Please bear in mind "customers" here are NHS Hospital Trusts
The Swiftqueue platform is delivering tangible results and a rapid return on investment for customers, benefiting:
Patients by empowering them and giving them choice.
Clinicians by providing information, optimal work patterns, flexibility and improved patient communication.
Managers and Administrators by increasing capacity, reducing the administration burden on clinics and hospitals.
Couldn't have it yesterday because Swiftqueue could not accommodate doing a test 12 hours after my medication.
Today - half the seats in the waiting room have been removed.
There is a sort of maître d'hôtel lady conducting the massive queue - and the guy in front of me can't handle the log in terminal - just keeps repeating his ineligible movements - had to fetch his wife/guardian.
I was in and out within 10 minutes - but I had pre-booked, something many "customers" seem unable or unwilling to do.
Under the old system it ran smoothly, all comers served in order maximum wait if very busy 30 minutes.
How much are Dedalus paid for this shit?
Please bear in mind "customers" here are NHS Hospital Trusts
The Swiftqueue platform is delivering tangible results and a rapid return on investment for customers, benefiting:
Patients by empowering them and giving them choice.
Clinicians by providing information, optimal work patterns, flexibility and improved patient communication.
Managers and Administrators by increasing capacity, reducing the administration burden on clinics and hospitals.
colacubes
Mr Hot Cookie
Maximum wait was never 30 minutes previously. I waited well over an hour on many occasions. The new system of pre booking works well for adults and when you have to get a paediatric blood test in the kids bit. The confusing thing is the implementation here and why they don't insist on pre booking with maybe holding aside X appointments for walk ins.
I do agree that the waiting room etc is an utter mess.
I do agree that the waiting room etc is an utter mess.
Residents are reporting back that seating has been placed to face the shops and beds left unplanted with signs to grow whatever you want, which was not in the original plans. The general consensus is left looking unfinished.
The projected costs for this project are coming to us as one million. I hope this is for other areas too!
Personally for a million I would rather see clean streets and less cutting of services to vulnerable families. To me Lambeth's priorities seem crazy.
What's wrong with seating facing the shops.
Pretty sure planting will be put in as in other areas but please do correct me if this isn't the case.
Personally I think it's really important that we reclaim space from cars that we've just let take over everywhere and great that the council is investing in this.
Rushy
basically a scrotum
Do you know what the source of funding was? I'm guessing it was not all Lambeth?
Cost sounds about right - I have been looking at a perhaps larger but less intensive project and the architects reckon a scheme like that is in the 1-2million. There is not any immediately obvious Lambeth funding available beyond something like £5K pocket parks - which the residents don't want.
There are signs on the beds saying grow what you like.
Reclaiming space from cars is all well and good when you're not having care packages slashed and services cut. If it costs a million in this context, now is not the time.
The seating is facing into shops instead of at the reclaimed road. I think away from the planters
.No, I hope it's not Lambeth because contextually that would be ludicrous.
DJWrongspeed
radio eros
Looks great. What's not evident is how long improvements like these take. It's months of work as the whole road has to be dug up.
Yeah - I've seen these but they don't say that's the only planting.
Surely a very separate thing - lots of things you could point to that we shouldn't spend money when there are other priorities.
Why should benches face the road? Really don't get your point here.The seating is facing into shops instead of at the reclaimed road. I think away from the planters
I haven't followed what's happening closely but reports are that the benches are facing away from the nice newness. Why should they face into shops instead of the world going by? People living down there are saying it's strange.
Nothing in the planning about residents having to plant.
At a time where the local authority is on the brink of bankruptcy, you have to prioritise. Vulnerable people always first, one million is a lot of money.
Puddy_Tat
naturally fluffy
Without knowing any of the specifics here (and other than occupying the bit of virtual brixton that's urban, not being a local), local authority funding isn't always simple.
at the risk of stating the obvious,
much funding comes from central government, but it's divided strictly in to 'capital' spending - as in a one off project to build / do something and 'revenue' spending - as in ongoing funding of a service.
capital spending is mostly funded by borrowing at central or local government level, revenue spending is supposed to be met out of ongoing national / local taxes / rates. putting 'capital' money in to 'revenue' spending is not allowed.
that is why it is difficult for councils to spend money on maintaining existing buildings etc and easier to wait until they are so knackered that they can do a 'capital' project for major refurbishment or demolish and start again.
having said that, there can be a political angle - doing a major refurbishment / building something new generates a nice photo opportunity for the politicians at national or local level, ongoing maintenance behind the scenes doesn't.
some central government funding is from specific government funding streams, which increasingly (and time / resource consumingly) has to be bid for by councils against each other. if (for example) there's a government fund to mend pot holes in roads, that money has to be spent on mending pot holes in roads, the council can't use that funding to fund bus services instead.
and then there's some funding as part of agreements with developers, which again has to be spent on what's in the agreement not put in to the council's general fund.
yes it is bollocks and can all end up costing more in the long run, and i agree that it seems questionable when money is being spent on a capital scheme while revenue funding is being cut, but it's not always down to councils.
at the risk of stating the obvious,
much funding comes from central government, but it's divided strictly in to 'capital' spending - as in a one off project to build / do something and 'revenue' spending - as in ongoing funding of a service.
capital spending is mostly funded by borrowing at central or local government level, revenue spending is supposed to be met out of ongoing national / local taxes / rates. putting 'capital' money in to 'revenue' spending is not allowed.
that is why it is difficult for councils to spend money on maintaining existing buildings etc and easier to wait until they are so knackered that they can do a 'capital' project for major refurbishment or demolish and start again.
having said that, there can be a political angle - doing a major refurbishment / building something new generates a nice photo opportunity for the politicians at national or local level, ongoing maintenance behind the scenes doesn't.
some central government funding is from specific government funding streams, which increasingly (and time / resource consumingly) has to be bid for by councils against each other. if (for example) there's a government fund to mend pot holes in roads, that money has to be spent on mending pot holes in roads, the council can't use that funding to fund bus services instead.
and then there's some funding as part of agreements with developers, which again has to be spent on what's in the agreement not put in to the council's general fund.
yes it is bollocks and can all end up costing more in the long run, and i agree that it seems questionable when money is being spent on a capital scheme while revenue funding is being cut, but it's not always down to councils.
Not sure they're having to - it's giving the opportunity to people which some might welcome.
Well let's hope it's going to be monitored and maintained as it's taken the residents by surprise who were expecting a finished job.
It's not at all transparent. People have got figures but they don't know where the funding is coming from.
When they want a co-op council/residents mucking in, then we're all in it together.
But residents want more transparency especially as they see services being cut and life generally getting harder.
Puddy_Tat
naturally fluffy
yes - councils aren't often good at explaining this sort of thing.
presumably it's all somewhere in a huge document / spreadsheet full of incomprehensible data in the depths of their website, but...
I'm in a local group that's organising a meet up to discuss how they can use the space.
tbh it's pretty tiring how negative some people can be when cars are no longer prioritised on our streets.
It's pretty tiring having all of the difficulties facing people in Lambeth being conflated into the car/anti car discussion. For me this is not about cars or not at all.
You're finding (minor) issues with very minor road changes - and this isn't the first instance of you doing so.
The difficulties facing people in Lambeth shouldn't be conflated into making a parade of shops and a pub nicer for local people and it's frankly weird that you wish to do so.
I'm raising issues that the local community are raising about a very expensive project.
If you refer to my issues about the lack of access to ltns for disabled people, bring it on. I continue to be disgusted that those on the left of this issue, not the right wing One Lambeth nutjobs, think this is an acceptable situation.
All spending in Lambeth is under scrutiny right now, especially when you live and work at the coal face of those cuts, which you clearly don't.
You're raising issues that are weird or untrue. Benches facing shops!? Planting only done by residents!? A million pounds for this section?!
I hear you about disability issues about LTNs but you always seem anti them in principle only and the fact you're anti widening pavements & providing seating here really does make me question your motivation.
The common thread of opposition for most of these schemes really does seem to be car drivers being annoyed with being slightly inconvenienced and their needs no longer being prioritised.
Most reasonable people, as can be shown by this thread, welcome changes like this.
I'm not at all anti widening pavements or providing seating, you've made that up. I'm cynical about spending in Lambeth and jobs being done properly.
Everything I've said appears to be true. I didn't say planting only done by residents, again made up, I said some had been left for residents but no discussion about this was done in advance. I want to know where funding comes from, rightly so when I am in constant fights about saving packages people rely on for survival including my own family. And the benches facing shops is a bit weird.
I'm not even anti ltn, once again made up. Every opposition I've given to them has been how they are making life difficult for those disabled that need to drive. If Lambeth gave access, instead of passively aggressively attacking the disabled for fighting them on this by granting them access to one filter, I would have zero argument with them.
You make up this shit about me because YOU cannot parse these issues from your black and white pro car or anti car stance.
sparkybird
ask the bird...
I don't know where the funding has come from, but I would imagine much of it was ring fenced from LTN fines - these have to be spent back in the community on improvement schemes that complement the LTN. Unfortunately they can't be spent on other areas such as mental health or other support services.
And that would be fine, people just want transparency in the current cuts climate.
And we want stuff done well and finished and maintained to a high standard.
I personally would like to see some of that fine money allocated to making the scheme more accessible for disabled people that need to drive. For example I am already stressing about what will happen in Myatts Fields in 2026 if our short cuts to St Thomas' are taken away as we are frequent hospital users and already have to drive through heavily trafficked Brixton now that LTNs block short cuts.
thebackrow
Considerably more Brixton.
stressing about what will happen in Myatts Fields in 2026 if our short cuts to St Thomas' are taken away
Your short cut thorough narrow residential streets. Someone else’s dangerously busy rat run with speeding through-traffic.
Your short cut thorough narrow residential streets. Someone else’s dangerously busy rat run with speeding through-traffic.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Some figures for roads spending here (only up to 2021)
www.lambeth.gov.uk
If a figure of 1M is being talked about, it looks to me like that would be for a wider scheme, not just this one bit.
Worth bearing in mind that comparing a one off capital cost for something like this, with an annual budget for something else, isn't really comparing like for like. If (yes, if) something like this is implemented well, and works, then it continues providing benefit for many years (decades even), and potentially to very large numbers of people. Of course, this argument is not going to convince anyone who doesn't agree with the thing in the first place.
Road maintenance and infrastructure
Spending figures for road maintenance and infrastructure investment plans and proposals from 1 Jan 2010 to 31 Dec 2020.
www.lambeth.gov.uk
If a figure of 1M is being talked about, it looks to me like that would be for a wider scheme, not just this one bit.
Worth bearing in mind that comparing a one off capital cost for something like this, with an annual budget for something else, isn't really comparing like for like. If (yes, if) something like this is implemented well, and works, then it continues providing benefit for many years (decades even), and potentially to very large numbers of people. Of course, this argument is not going to convince anyone who doesn't agree with the thing in the first place.
I understand that. I'm not suggesting there be no ltn. I'm saying people who need to access the hospital regularly because they have complex medical needs should be able to
So frankly, fuck off.
I guess the million pound figure comes from the below works and not for this section.
It seems to be for about 13 separate sites.
It seems to be for about 13 separate sites.
Last edited:
thebackrow
Considerably more Brixton.
Some figures for roads spending here (only up to 2021)
Road maintenance and infrastructure
Spending figures for road maintenance and infrastructure investment plans and proposals from 1 Jan 2010 to 31 Dec 2020.
If a figure of 1M is being talked about, it looks to me like that would be for a wider scheme, not just this one bit.
Worth bearing in mind that comparing a one off capital cost for something like this, with an annual budget for something else, isn't really comparing like for like. If (yes, if) something like this is implemented well, and works, then it continues providing benefit for many years (decades even), and potentially to very large numbers of people. Of course, this argument is not going to convince anyone who doesn't agree with the thing in the first place.
Labour-run Lambeth rakes in up to £50m in fines since introducing controversial low-traffic neighbourhoods
Labour-run Lambeth Council has raked in up to £50m in fines since introducing controversial low-traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) in the south London borough.
www.lbc.co.uk
It costs a lot to make permanent changes to roads. But it looks like the costs are covered many times over by the money drivers have chosen to donate by ignoring clearly signposted filters. The fines income has to be ring fenced for transport schemes - it’s not allowed to be spent on anything else.
Of course the same people moaning about the spend on Elm Park Road (and you just know it’s going to be the same voices ) are the same who moaned about LTNs being money making schemes AND the same who were insistent that nearly every filter had to have potential for people to drive through which is why they have cameras rather than bollards.
there are kids starting school in Oval, Railton who’ve never known their streets as busy rat runs - it four years now. They’re not changing back.
Similar threads
