Herne Hill news, chitter chatter and gossip

[editor]

Isn’t their argument that the commonplace website is what they will use to gather info?

I wouldn't be surprised if just this one threads gets more traffic and comments than the related sections on commonplace. I don't think the project's presentation was particularly appealing or well advertised or promoted at all, but that's not unusual for Lambeth who generally have appalling web/IT skills.

 

[snowy_again]

Nope, the commonplace site is being very well used - much more so in the last few days.

It’s not a discussion forum though - it pinpoints comments on the scheme and allows meta tags and ‘likes’of other peoples’ comments.

The software is a bit clunky and I’m not sure whether it meets equalities act guidance, and it doesn’t easily link to the reasons and policies behind the work.

Update on Railton ANPR - a lorry arrived yesterday and took 30 mins to load 4 orange barriers they’d put around the camera and sign posts. I’ll bet now that the northbound one is knocked down in less than two weeks.

 

[thebackrow]

This is why I'm not that arsed about consultation, it will just run into the usual Nimby stuff and we'll end up with a few useless traffic calming measures. There is a huge amount of entitlement around motoring.

Exactly. I keep pointing out the massive contradiction between Gramsci's own statements over the years.

Back when the LJ scheme was canned (way back in the LJ scheme thread) he said:

“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.”

So it was a farce because all suggestions to reduce road traffic were ruled out but now he thinks "a more small scale scheme had been done then I think it would have worked. Closing a few rat runs- like the Padfield road and bringing in better traffic calming." Ie if they'd done a scheme that did nothing to reduce road traffic would have been fine.

I can't work out anything that reconciles those two statements coming from the same person about the same scheme.

 

[editor]

Nope, the commonplace site is being very well used - much more so in the last few days.

It’s not a discussion forum though - it pinpoints comments on the scheme and allows meta tags and ‘likes’of other peoples’ comments.

The software is a bit clunky and I’m not sure whether it meets equalities act guidance, and it doesn’t easily link to the reasons and policies behind the work.

Update on Railton ANPR - a lorry arrived yesterday and took 30 mins to load 4 orange barriers they’d put around the camera and sign posts. I’ll bet now that the northbound one is knocked down in less than two weeks.

How do you know how busy it is and how many people are using it? The quotes aren't attributed so it could be just a handful of people contributing.

I can't imagine many people on my estate would be likely to grapple with it, assuming they even know about it in the first place.

And going to this page and clicking the big 'see ideas and comment' button does absolutely nothing. Awful design.

 

[Rushy]

Exactly. I keep pointing out the massive contradiction between Gramsci's own statements over the years.

Back when the LJ scheme was canned (way back in the LJ scheme thread) he said:

“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.”

So it was a farce because all suggestions to reduce road traffic were ruled out but now he thinks "a more small scale scheme had been done then I think it would have worked. Closing a few rat runs- like the Padfield road and bringing in better traffic calming." Ie if they'd done a scheme that did nothing to reduce road traffic would have been fine.

I can't work out anything that reconciles those two statements coming from the same person about the same scheme.

Hang on. You're agreeing with someone saying that they're not arsed about consultation of local residents. Yet weren't cyclists very closely and repeatedly consulted on these very schemes?

Its all very well moaning about one group's sense of entitlement but it is not a step forward to replace it with another's.

 

[Rushy]

Isn’t their argument that the commonplace website is what they will use to gather info?

Why wasn't that used for consulting cyclists? Because it is shit. And hard to find. And not fit for purpose. That's why cyclists had repeated consults with officers.

And these projects are supposed to be as much about pedestrians. Who are likely to make up the most pedestrians? Residents in the areas.

 

[teuchter]

I don't really see evidence that these schemes have been contrived in a way that prioritises cyclists over pedestrians, nor that there are things that have been done to suit cyclists that have prevented measures that would benefit pedestrians more.

On the whole, if you make somewhere more cycle-friendly, you also make it more pedestrian friendly.

Of course, you can make it even more pedestrian friendly by removing cyclists altogether, but that implies also moving all motorised traffic altogether, but that is not the kind of thing that is being implemented here.

There is some kind of theoretical scenario where there's an intention to fully pedestrianise an area, and then a cyclist lobby group appears and manages to get a dedicated cycle route through the middle of it and ruins it, but that is miles away from anything being talked about in this case.

 

[teuchter]

There are also, by the way, a few groups who represent pedestrian interests specifically, eg

Walkable Neighbourhoods

Cities around the world are now competing in terms of liveability. At Living Streets we think this means ensuring our streets are walkable.

www.livingstreets.org.uk

I don't know to what extent they have been involved in / consulted upon as far as these schemes are concerned, but I do believe they try to get involved in influencing policy.

 

[Gramsci]

Exactly. I keep pointing out the massive contradiction between Gramsci's own statements over the years.

Back when the LJ scheme was canned (way back in the LJ scheme thread) he said:

“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.”

So it was a farce because all suggestions to reduce road traffic were ruled out but now he thinks "a more small scale scheme had been done then I think it would have worked. Closing a few rat runs- like the Padfield road and bringing in better traffic calming." Ie if they'd done a scheme that did nothing to reduce road traffic would have been fine.

I can't work out anything that reconciles those two statements coming from the same person about the same scheme.

Can you stop doing this.

You are posting up about me without the courtesy of linking my user name properly.

This is the second time Ive pointed this out to you recently. You ignored me last time.

Its underhand.

If you've something to say to me have the courtesy of doing it properly. Do it directly to me.

 

[editor]

Hang on. You're agreeing with someone saying that they're not arsed about consultation of local residents. Yet weren't cyclists very closely and repeatedly consulted on these very schemes?

Could you detail how cyclists were "very closely and repeatedly consulted" on these schemes, please?

 

[Gramsci]

Exactly. I keep pointing out the massive contradiction between Gramsci's own statements over the years.

Back when the LJ scheme was canned (way back in the LJ scheme thread) he said:

“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.”

So it was a farce because all suggestions to reduce road traffic were ruled out but now he thinks "a more small scale scheme had been done then I think it would have worked. Closing a few rat runs- like the Padfield road and bringing in better traffic calming." Ie if they'd done a scheme that did nothing to reduce road traffic would have been fine.

I can't work out anything that reconciles those two statements coming from the same person about the same scheme.

Plus Ive already dealt with this in previous posts. You don't listen.

 

[Gramsci]

Could you detail how cyclists were "very closely and repeatedly consulted" on these schemes, please?

Actuallly Lambeth Cyclists and LCC are very good at getting the ear of politicians.

From what Ive seen the idea is to go for the top decision makers.

Also consultation is pointless it would be better if Councils imposed this from above.

They are well organised.

Not a criticism.

 

[thebackrow]

Plus Ive already dealt with this in previous posts. You don't listen.

No, you've never managed to explain the hypocrisy.

Could you detail how cyclists were "very closely and repeatedly consulted" on these schemes, please?

Surely the relevant cabinet members and officers wouldn't be doing a very good job if they didn't "closely and repeatedly" speak to campaign groups. You'd kind of hope they would be speaking to Living Streets, Mums for Lungs, Lambeth Cyclists, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace? Must be others too. Isn't 'influencing policy' the whole aim of a campaign groups? There wouldn't be any point in them existing if they didn't.

They must be meeting with Extinction Rebellion too given that they're setting up a citizens assembly.
Sure enough - Agenda for Council on Wednesday 22 January 2020, 7.00 pm | Lambeth Council
"Following regular meetings with a wide range of environmental groups, including Extinction Rebellion and Mums for Lungs, it had been decided to delay setting up the assembly to ensure it was organised robustly."

 

[thebackrow]

Also, on the "theres been no consultation" has anyone actually dug around the Railton website?

What did you tell us?

Take a look at the engagement results

rtstreets.commonplace.is

This doesn't sound like they just quietly dropped a website and did nothing more.

 

[editor]

Also, on the "theres been no consultation" has anyone actually dug around the Railton website?

What did you tell us?

Take a look at the engagement results

rtstreets.commonplace.is

This doesn't sound like they just quietly dropped a website and did nothing more.
View attachment 218319

They received a total of 142 responses in a year. That's half of what this single thread gets in half that time.

 

[thebackrow]

How many individual posters on this thread (rather than the same few of us sparring over the same old issues?) Anyway, those 6 weeks this year look rather busy - that certainly looks like an attempt to do a load more community work that seemed to have been done in the past.

 

[Gramsci]

No, you've never managed to explain the hypocrisy.

So its abuse now.

You have made your position clear. You aren't interested in local community being consulted. So they should have it imposed on them.

I cycle all the time. Have done so for years. I don't own a car. I use public transport.

I am not a petrol head or nimby.

I have repeatedly given my position on the recent scheme.

So you choose to try and smear me. Digging up stuff from years ago.

Its this kind of thing that puts me off green issues.

 

[Gramsci]

Thing is Council were doing consultation on the Liveable Neighnourhood scheme.

This was an ongoing process.

As Ive said previously the officer in charge told us in LJ that lessons had been learnt from the LJ road closure fiasco.

The Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood scheme I was told would not happen if the Council hadnt this time built up local community support.

This was not going to be a quick process.

Council were going to try harder to consult.

In the case of the Railton scheme consultation has given way to just doing a scheme. The Council never went back to the community to get agreement for the scheme. Except for input of business , police and emergency services

This has happened due to pandemic.

As this is a scheme that is temporary further consultation should happen later.

In theory.

Im going to have to see if that happens in any meaningful way.

As Rushy has posted up this is supposed to be a Coop Council. It wasn't my idea. Pre pandemic meeting and I pointed out to the Labour Cllrs present at a local community meeting that this was supposed to be a Coop Council . Has been for years. They should have sorted out how to do consultation by now. ( this was on another local issue where lack of consultation was brought up by a resident.)

If the Council dont want to be a Coop Council they should say so. People can't be accused of being difficult if they are just exercising what they thought were there rights under a Coop Council.

 

[Gramsci]

On another scheme was chatting to the consultants. Commonplace is one way to consult. But on the ground face to face consultation along with going around and observing how a neighbourhood is used are very important.

With social distancing and pandemic that is either difficult or not possible.

Commonplace isn't really enough to base decisons on. That is if community are going to be involved in schemes in a meaningful way.

 

[friendofdorothy]

Dear thebackrow please take your gripes and personal digs about LJ to the LJ forum. Its getting very difficult to follow to follow whats actually happening here in Herne Hill on this forum

Also, on the "theres been no consultation" has anyone actually dug around the Railton website?

What did you tell us?

Take a look at the engagement results

rtstreets.commonplace.is

This doesn't sound like they just quietly dropped a website and did nothing more.
View attachment 218319

didn't even know there was a 'Railton website' and having no children, no faith, rarely visiting a market and having not been ill lately I missed all this. Can I just speak up for all the people in the area who don't do social media, who don't have smart phones who maybe who don't have any access to the internet, it's not all young and affluent people around here. And loads of us have been staying indoors. I walk down Railton road frequently (not so often during lockdown) and there are no notices, posters or signs at all, though I saw a bit of Shakespear rd around Mayall road is closed - it looks temp like road works.

I'm still unclear as to what is actually going to be happening on Railton road?

 

[madolesance]

All through traffic needs to be removed from residential areas. Residential’ zones are where people live, kids can play and not worry about speeding vehicles passing through and usually not giving any thought about who may live there.

 

[editor]

Dear thebackrow please take your gripes and personal digs about LJ to the LJ forum. Its getting very difficult to follow to follow whats actually happening here in Herne Hill on this forum


didn't even know there was a 'Railton website' and having no children, no faith, rarely visiting a market and having not been ill lately I missed all this. Can I just speak up for all the people in the area who don't do social media, who don't have smart phones who maybe who don't have any access to the internet, it's not all young and affluent people around here. And loads of us have been staying indoors. I walk down Railton road frequently (not so often during lockdown) and there are no notices, posters or signs at all, though I saw a bit of Shakespear rd around Mayall road is closed - it looks temp like road works.

I'm still unclear as to what is actually going to be happening on Railton road?

I completely agree. This is the best info I could find: Railton Low Traffic Neighbourhood – emergency changes introduced this weekend, 13th-14th June 2020

There's some related discussion here too: Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists

 

[teuchter]

I'm still unclear as to what is actually going to be happening on Railton road?

There will be a few points where the road has a 'gate' that only buses and emergency vehicles can drive through. The result is that people can't use Railton Rd as a route to drive between Herne Hill and Brixton. Doesn't affect you unless you are a driver, other than reducing the amount of traffic. Everyone in the zone will still be able to drive to and from their homes, just by a slightly different route in some cases. That's about it.

 

[Gramsci]

I got this email from the Council yesterday. Looks like a good idea to help social distancing.

18th June - Update on footway widening to aid social distancing in Lambeth

Read the latest project update on Creating safe distances for pedestrians & cyclists in Lambeth.

lambethtransportcovidresponsemap.commonplace.is

We have been reviewing your comments on a weekly basis, and are nearing 800 contributions so far. Milkwood Road has been highlighted by many of you as an area where social distancing is difficult, and has therefore been identified as a priority location. As such, we will be narrowing the carriageway to allow for wider footway space to aid social distancing in this location this weekend. The indicative location of the cones/barriers can be seen in the image below. Once implemented, we will be monitoring these measures on a regular basis to determine if they are effective, so please do let us know if you have any feedback following implementation.

 

[snowy_again]

The new bits in that map are outside the shops from Dickson’s off licence to the railway passage.

 

[Not a Vet]

Unfortunately, that is one of the main roads to LJ now that Shakespeare is a no through road. Wider pavements equal narrower roads equal yet more congestion. So you will be able to socially distance whilst queuing to get in the shops but unfortunately be gassed by the queuing traffic

 

[Lizzy Mac]

I'm trying to follow this but get a bit lost. I cycled past the Dogstar earlier and there was carnage with two P5s trying to pass each other on opposite routes.
Not sure if this was a mistake, if it's even related or if it will happen all the time.

 

[editor]

Update Work on Railton Road low traffic neighbourhood starts this weekend between Brixton and Herne Hill, 27th-28th June 2020

 

[Happy Herne]

My understanding is that Lambeth Council is looking at Common place and also have plans to consult with residents. As someone who walks around the neighborhood with young children, I welcome a scheme that will make it safer. Some of the drivers are terrifying. Also it was great seeing families out on their bikes during lockdown.

 

[MissL]

From what I've seen this weekend there's noticeably more traffic now queuing on Water Lane and down Effra Road - obviously this going to be the case! So come September I can look forward (maybe) to walking my kids to school past more idling traffic, but as long as the Poet's Corner residents get some clean air then stuff anyone else.