I think this is kind of important.
They will be spending £750,000 on our area with or without your opinion on how that should be spent.
If people don't hear about the plans and try to get involved in what's on the table that would be.. a shame. The decisions & spending & work will happen without even a semblance of consensus .
Me for instance I want options 4 and 14 "safer road crossings for pedestrians" and am not interested in 6 ('eye catching planters') or 9 ('repainted bridges') .
View attachment 89246
I have issues with the leaflet as a whole. I go to the Loughborough Junction Neighbourhood Planning Forum. Steering Group meetings took place before the Forum ones. So at forum we got a brief rundown of what happened. Get distinct feeling it wasn’t always harmonious meetings at the Steering Group.
The "steering group" for the TFL money set up by Council is closed group. Invite only.
Joe Public gets a leaflet ( if lucky and) can make a few comments. The map shows only one option. Not a lot of detail. Nor does it explain very well what the options mean or reasoning behind them.
Been trying to find info on the TFL funding. Someone from Lambeth Cyclists said that TFL have "service delivery" standards that go with the funding. Not clear on what this is. I think its to do with improving areas for pedestrians and cyclists.
I did find this on TFL website.
Mayor and TfL confirms £148m to help transform transport across London
Lambeth - £350,000 towards improving Loughborough Junction to make it safer for cyclists and pedestrians at the junction of Coldharbour Lane and Loughborough Road
Money appears to have doubled. Not sure why. I do know the Council is now under pressure to get the scheme finished as this has been going on for such a long time.
So the leaflet saying that this is just the "initial concept" is a bit misleading. I did ask at the LJNPF what actual say Joe Public will have on this proposal. I didn’t get a straight reply on this. So was left none the wiser. Which was a bit concerning.
Are we really being asked which options we want from 1 to 14?
Also from the TFL website.
The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson said: `This funding is specifically targeted to provide benefits at key locations across London, helping to make the capital's roads and open spaces safer, more pleasant places to be. Providing better cycling and walking routes, as well as a raft of major improvements to our streets will help to boost the quality of life of those who live and work in our great city
From what Ive seen of the whole sorry saga of the TFL money is that one lot want to go the whole hog (LJAG) and one lot want none of it (LJ Road Madness). What its going to end up as is watered down scheme with bits and piece of "improvements" but satisfying neither party and doing little to really improve the area. Just doing enough to maybe satisfy TFL funding requirements. That is the TFL funding is there and has to be spent now. Rather than enthusiastic use of it.
For example I thought the raised road surface was going to be across the whole junction. It now look like its only going to be outside the railway station.
There is nothing to make cycling safer. Widening pavements ( number 1 and from the small drawing it looks like thats the proposal) without improvements for cycling leads to situation like in Shaftesbury avenue where traffic gets even closer to the cyclist. But that has raised surface so one is not pushed up against the kerb. I dont see that on these plans.
Improvement to junction without measures to reduce/ deter through traffic will possibly cause bottlenecks of traffic.
I have got the impression the Council are getting a bit desperate to get on with it. The event on Saturday- I would be careful that chatty officers will be on hand to encourage one to support this "initial concept". Which in reality is the only one on the table.
What happens if I say I want some money spent of closing Padfield road one end to make that road safer? Why not? I will suggest that on Saturday. The likely answer will be that this is ruled out of order. But I thought that after the previous debacle those who wanted Loughborough road reopened said they still wanted traffic through area reduced in other ways. Where is this in the proposals? Or is it that LJ road madness have won the day pretty well completely? Thats how it looks to me.
They are also likely to ask vague questions about how one feels the area should be "improved".
Basically I think yet again the masses are in danger of being used as consultation fodder.
I would be very careful of what I would say.
Several people present had not got leaflets. 
