Loughborough Junction public space improvements - consultation begins

[teuchter]

Reducing the predominance of car dependency is absolutely progressive in my opinion.

I find it strange that even on urban75 the basic idea of it meets such resistance. People will gladly espouse socialist principles on most things but then go nuts when you suggest interfering with their motoring habits. I've had these arguments over and over again on here, where I am saying that the individual motorist should accept some short term inconvenience for the longer term benefit of the greater good. The more people that use public transport the better that public transport is for everyone. Same for cycling. A virtuous cycle instead of the horrible vicious cycle we have got into where we become more and more dependent on cars and those who don't or can't drive find stuff becoming more and more inaccessible.
And car ownership is expensive and thus not an option for everyone.
In addition, cars make cities - well just about anywhere - less pleasant places to be. And waste loads of space.

There's especially no excuse in London for motorists to complain about their freedoms being taken away. There's simply no need to own a car in London.

Car sharing schemes can fill in the gaps for the small number of journeys that do need a car. And those schemes are now widely available in London.

A while back I proposed a scheme for nationalising everyone's cars and instigating a UK wide car sharing scheme. You'd think that might be an U75 freindly proposal but it didn't seem very popular.

My worry with this LJ scheme now is that it hasn't been properly thought through. That the principle is good but that it's been hastily designed and isn't going to work properly. So the objectors will be able to point out failings and which will be used against various future schemes and everything will be set back.

In general I think there has been a very positive change in approach to road and traffic design in London recently. Lots of small things that go ahead quite quietly (junction redesigns, removal of pedestrian barriers etc) and are successful. It would be sad to see things hindered by the negative fallout from a badly implemented scheme.

It is tricky because this particular scheme has got tangled up in concerns about gentrification. There are contradictory objections...some people seem worried it will make the area unsafe or insecure. Some seem effectively to be saying it will make LJ too appealing, with the consequence that there will be an influx of gentrifiers. The case against it is confused.

 

[teuchter]

And Gramsci you were quite right earlier on when you pointed out the political leanings of the reclaim the street movements (which I've always been supportive of - and "reclaim" was exactly the right word in that case). Somewhere along the line the message has got lost.

 

[LadyV]

Scan:
View attachment 74448

Did anyone catch the last line of the Evening Standard article?

"There will be no "physical" barrier at the junction during the trial but that new "no entry" signs would be enforced by CCTV cameras"

Anyone who lives near the junction will know that when the junction has been closed for roadworks when there hasn't been any physical barriers, lots of people still drive through! This is going to be interesting to watch. Although probably a good money maker for someone.

The one good thing for people against the closure is that no physical barrier will give them lots of things to complain about and maybe get it removed and rejected. It will be far more dangerous this way and is not going to create the town centre feeling that LJAG are claiming.

 

[Aeryn]

I live in LJ, have done for 15 years, and cycle along that road every day. I have no reason to oppose improvements to cycling infrastructure.

What I dislike about this is the fact that they aren't going to improve the road layout, they're just going to cordon off a council estate (the bit between Fiveways and Brixton Road is the problem area in my opinion, but that's private housing so it's been left outside the ghetto area). If it was just Loughborough Road that would be one thing but it's not, it's every road in and out. It will create a ghetto.

A lot of people see this as a prelude to another Heygate Estate - block off Loughborough Estate, close down the shops, make it so hard for people to live here that they move out, and then sell the land off like they did with Oval Quarter.

And I'm not reassured by LCC pulling stunts like emailing members who live in Forest Hill (like my brother, for instance) with template letters and telling them to lobby specific LJ councillors - including people from miles away in the "66% of local people support the scheme" is pretty disingenuous. There were no leaflets posted out locally - I found out about it on here.

I've had prominent people in the pro campaign tell me that "this is a shit area", "the people who live here are all a bunch of thieves", and "this area has too many nail bars and hair salons, we need some decent shops around here". Like the fucking "Brewtique" in the promotional leaflets. I'm white, so they assume I'll agree with them. I don't, this is absolutely about social cleansing and it's fucked up.

 

[teuchter]

What I dislike about this is the fact that they aren't going to improve the road layout, they're just going to cordon off a council estate (the bit between Fiveways and Brixton Road is the problem area in my opinion, but that's private housing so it's been left outside the ghetto area). If it was just Loughborough Road that would be one thing but it's not, it's every road in and out. It will create a ghetto.

This is complete nonsense.

The map below shows (in pink) where the roads will be closed. Nowhere is "cordoned off". There is nowhere where "every road in and out" has been blocked.

There is an area including the estate which will become less directly accessible by car, to/from the South-East. If the blocks were to be made instead between Fiveways and Brixton Road, the same area would instead become less accessible to/from the North (ie towards the centre of town).

The area including the estate will remain exactly as accessible as it currently is by foot, cycle and public transport.

 

[Aeryn]

Let's hope nobody in the estate ever needs transport to King's then. I'm sure they'll be relieved to know the residents of Myatt's Field won't be inconvenienced at all.

 

[teuchter]

• During the experimental period, all of the roads (except Padfield Road) could be used by the emergency services and, if necessary, a temporary traffic order could be made to suspend the restrictions should any of the roads be needed for use as a temporary diversion route if Coldharbour Lane had to be closed.

 

[teuchter]

(From the Lambeth doc, available to anyone wanting to judge the scheme on the basis of actual facts)

 

[CH1]

Let's hope nobody in the estate ever needs transport to King's then. I'm sure they'll be relieved to know the residents of Mystt's Field won't be inconvenienced at all.

I think teuchter's map is out of date. Assumes the P5 will be going along Barrington Road - whereas more recently it was supposed to be able to go down Loughborough Road on the basis that it is a proxy-bicycle.

True, Myatts Fields residents may not be inconvenienced - but only if they make a detour to Southwark and out of Looney Lambeth.

 

[teuchter]

From Lambeth report, 23rd June

• The introduction of a Pedestrian Zone except local buses and cycles on Loughborough Road between Ridgeway Road and Styles Gardens.
  
  
• The introduction of point No Entry except local buses and cycles in both directions on Barrington Road.
  

• The introduction of point No Entry except cycles in both directions on Gordon Grove, Lilford Road and Calais Street.
  
  
• The introduction of a road closure except cycles on Padfield Road.
  
  
• Changes to waiting and loading restrictions on Loughborough Road.

So both the Loughborough Rd and Barrington Rd closures open to buses.

Otherwise, seems to match the map.

 

[LadyV]

Let's hope nobody in the estate ever needs transport to King's then. I'm sure they'll be relieved to know the residents of Myatt's Field won't be inconvenienced at all.

This was one of my complaints when I contacted the councillor who oversaw the call in meeting, as someone who lives in Styles Gardens, to get to Kings in a taxi, presuming I couldn't walk but wasn't urgent enough for an ambulance, rather than being able to turn straight out and then along Coldharbour Lane, the cab would have to go either some weird route around Angell Road, St James Crescent, Gresham Road to join Coldharbour Lane or go up past Myatts Field, then either down Flodden Road and Camberwell Road or down Denmark Road to get onto Coldharbour Lane. Either way it's an arse. I know that everyone wants to reduce traffic in the area but when it comes down to it, not everyone can walk or cycle, not everyone is mobile enough to use public transport and these closures affect those people the most. I'm lucky, I can walk and do use public transport but not everyone can.

 

[LadyV]

Nowhere is "cordoned off". There is nowhere where "every road in and out" has been blocked.

You say that but trust me, that's not how it feels when you're right next to it.

 

[teuchter]

This was one of my complaints when I contacted the councillor who oversaw the call in meeting, as someone who lives in Styles Gardens, to get to Kings in a taxi, presuming I couldn't walk but wasn't urgent enough for an ambulance, rather than being able to turn straight out and then along Coldharbour Lane, the cab would have to go either some weird route around Angell Road, St James Crescent, Gresham Road to join Coldharbour Lane or go up past Myatts Field, then either down Flodden Road and Camberwell Road or down Denmark Road to get onto Coldharbour Lane. Either way it's an arse. I know that everyone wants to reduce traffic in the area but when it comes down to it, not everyone can walk or cycle, not everyone is mobile enough to use public transport and these closures affect those people the most. I'm lucky, I can walk and do use public transport but not everyone can.

Your one-off taxi ride to Kings in a non-urgent situation might take a couple of minutes longer. So what?

Meanwhile, perhaps a couple of hundred other people's daily bus journeys might take a couple of minutes less because of the reduced congestion.

 

[teuchter]

To put things into perspective - because I feel the inconvenience of slightly more circuitous taxi rides is being totally overblown - here's the actual difference between the two routes (from random address on Style Gdns to Kings).

 

[CH1]

To put things into perspective - because I feel the inconvenience of slightly more circuitous taxi rides is being totally overblown - here's the actual difference between the two routes (from random address on Style Gdns to Kings).

View attachment 75009 View attachment 75010

Will they be learning this in "The Knowledge"?

 

[LadyV]

To put things into perspective - because I feel the inconvenience of slightly more circuitous taxi rides is being totally overblown - here's the actual difference between the two routes (from random address on Style Gdns to Kings).

View attachment 75009 View attachment 75010

True when you put it like that it probably does seem like it's being overblown but what Google maps fails to put into the mix is on the Coldharbour Lane route, you're on a main road which is wide enough to have parked cars and two lanes of traffic, on the other route you're going down little roads that because they some of them don't have any parking restrictions, have cars parked on both sides and it's often down to one lane of traffic so that 5 minutes becomes 10-15 minutes.

Meanwhile, perhaps a couple of hundred other people's daily bus journeys might take a couple of minutes less because of the reduced congestion.

What reduced congestion? The most congested part of Coldharbour Lane, it's junction with Denmark Hill, will still be congested by your route as it brings you that way. And as for the rest of Coldharbour Lane, cars are still going to use it, drivers will just different ways of accessing it, mostly down the little roads I mention above.

The closure is not going to alleviate congestion anywhere except on Loughborough Road, so while everyone there basks in the marginally cleaner air, elsewhere on all these little roads that aren't designed for so much traffic, their air quality will deteriorate even more as there is no room for traffic to move so there will be more standing traffic with their engines on, unlike on Loughborough Road where they can move on. But hey ho why should we care, doesn't affect us right? As long as we have cleaner air on Loughborough Road and we have a town centre!

Until there is greater change at a higher level, car usage is never going to go down, by closing roads all you're doing is sending it somewhere else and clogging up roads that aren't designed for it, why not keep traffic on more arterial roads that are wider and have trees that can suck up some of the CO2?

 

[teuchter]

I meant congestion on Loughborough Road, mainly, where the P5 runs.

You seem to write with quite some confidence in your predictions about what the effects of these closures will be, on the massively complex system that is London's road traffic. Rather than speculating I'd rather wait and see what the results of the experimental period are. If it turns out that it does simply displace traffic onto smaller roads in the area, then I would be happy to declare the scheme a failure.

I'm not clear about exactly who's designed the scheme (is it mainly based on LJAG's proposals or has some expertise from TfL/Lambeth traffic planning been involved?) but if it's been done properly then the potential for these effects will have been taken into account. I would imagine the idea is to make the cut-through options slow enough that drivers stay on the main routes designed for through-traffic instead.

I am only a very occasional driver, but I sometimes use the route down Loughborough Rd if I'm going from LJ to somewhere in the Stockwell direction. If the closures come in, I don't think I would attempt a circuitous route through the back streets - I'd just go along Coldharbour Lane towards Brixton and down past the police station instead.

 

[Aeryn]

Teuchtar, let me guess. You're under 60, well-off, with no chronic health problems or mobility issues. You don't have young children (or if you do, they're non-resident) and you have no caring responsibilities for older relatives.

You are lucky to be in such a fortunate position, where you can mock the idea of a 15minute walk being difficult for some people in other threads, and seem unaware of the need for hospital transport and dial-a-ride services in this one. Please try to imagine for a minute that not everybody is as fortunate as you.

I know patients who attend hospital four times a week for dialysis - worsening their journey times IS going to impact their lives significantly, and they are upset and worried about this. I know older people who are concerned about being isolated when their families find it harder to get to them or when taxis decide they don't want to drive round and round the houses. And then there are the businesses worried about reduced footfall and problems with their deliveries.

People locally really are going to be negatively affected by this, difficult as it may be for you to imagine, and you suggesting that everybody should learn to ride a bike, or just dismissing their worries as "nonsense" or "so what?" is pretty offensive.

 

[LadyV]

I meant congestion on Loughborough Road, mainly, where the P5 runs.

You seem to write with quite some confidence in your predictions about what the effects of these closures will be, on the massively complex system that is London's road traffic. Rather than speculating I'd rather wait and see what the results of the experimental period are. If it turns out that it does simply displace traffic onto smaller roads in the area, then I would be happy to declare the scheme a failure.

I'm not clear about exactly who's designed the scheme (is it mainly based on LJAG's proposals or has some expertise from TfL/Lambeth traffic planning been involved?) but if it's been done properly then the potential for these effects will have been taken into account. I would imagine the idea is to make the cut-through options slow enough that drivers stay on the main routes designed for through-traffic instead.

I am only a very occasional driver, but I sometimes use the route down Loughborough Rd if I'm going from LJ to somewhere in the Stockwell direction. If the closures come in, I don't think I would attempt a circuitous route through the back streets - I'd just go along Coldharbour Lane towards Brixton and down past the police station instead.

I guess I'm in worse case scenario mode, on an average day to day basis, other then my safety concerns, the closure won't affect me, I mostly walk and use public transport, I'm an weekend car user but I use the Loughbrough Road/Coldharbour Lane junction practically every time I use my car, so to have it closed will be a inconvenience. But in the grand scheme of things it won't be the end of the world. However going off your description of how you use Loughborough Road I think I'm on the other side of the closure to you, so using Coldharbour Lane won't be an option really, getting to Camberwell will involve the route we discussed before, getting to Brixton will involve the weird route near Barrington Road, the only destination not affected is going towards Oval which I rarely do.

What I don't like is the feeling of being kettled in, yes you can still get in and out in a car but it's not going to be easy. I've resigned myself to the fact that is is happening now but I don't have to like it!

 

[teuchter]

Teuchtar, let me guess. You're under 60, well-off, with no chronic health problems or mobility issues. You don't have young children (or if you do, they're non-resident) and you have no caring responsibilities for older relatives.

You are lucky to be in such a fortunate position, where you can mock the idea of a 15minute walk being difficult for some people in other threads, and seem unaware of the need for hospital transport and dial-a-ride services in this one. Please try to imagine for a minute that not everybody is as fortunate as you.

I know patients who attend hospital four times a week for dialysis - worsening their journey times IS going to impact their lives significantly, and they are upset and worried about this. I know older people who are concerned about being isolated when their families find it harder to get to them or when taxis decide they don't want to drive round and round the houses. And then there are the businesses worried about reduced footfall and problems with their deliveries.

People locally really are going to be negatively affected by this, difficult as it may be for you to imagine, and you suggesting that everybody should learn to ride a bike, or just dismissing their worries as "nonsense" or "so what?" is pretty offensive.

All your points would be valid if this scheme really was going to make it significantly more difficult to access places within the affected area. But I don't think it is. I think you are overstating what will be a marginal increase in inconvenience in certain situations. Your previous comments about ghettoisation and places being completely cordoned off suggest to me that you haven't looked properly at the reality of what's being proposed.

Like I say, if, during the experimental period, there's evidence of signifiant problems arising then I will be happy to change my opinion.

Nowhere am I suggesting that everyone should learn to ride a bike. And the instance of mocking the idea of a 15 minute walk being excessive, that was aimed at a specific poster, a frequent u75 poster who I'm fairly sure is young and fit. Of course there are people for whom that could be difficult. Don't try and misrepresent me please.

 

[teuchter]

A more general comment, regarding these issues relating to people with reduced mobility.

These are points that are nearly always raised when anything aimed at reducing the dominance of cars is proposed.

Addressing them is a simple matter of taking them into account when a scheme is designed. Making sure there is still full access for emergency services. If parking is restricted making sure there are exceptions for disabled drivers and access for pick-up and drop-off of those needing assistance. If routes are blocked, accepting that journeys may be slightly extended for a small number in the interest of the greater good, but that they are not unreasonably extended. All this stuff can be dealt with in the detail of the design. I don't accept it at all as a valid argument against the general principal of reducing car dominance.

And it should always be remembered that while there are a small number of people who are totally reliant on door to door motorised transport, there are lots of people who for medical reasons can't drive. They may or may not have mobility issues but many do have chronic health isuues. All these people are disadvantaged in any system where the private car is dominant. They rely on public transport. The less congested the roads are, the more effective pubic transport can be. The less dangerous the roads are, the more people will feel safe cycling and walking. And the more people who can cycle and walk, the less pressure there is on public transport for those who can't. One of the reasons TfL encourages people to walk and cycle is that it takes pressure of the tube and buses.

Reducing the dominance of private cars, as a general principle, can benefit everyone, including those who are totally dependent on motorised transport. In a London where there are fewer cars on the road, the dialysis patient, or anyone else making a car journey that is actually necessary, can get to their dstination more quickly. But it only works if you aim towards a change in the whole system. That comes about from lots of local level changes all over the city. You can argue that blocking this rat run won't really discourage commuters from outside the area from driving to work because they'll find another one. Not if there is a consisitent city-wide policy that has as its central principal that pedestrians, cyclists and public transport should have priority. As it gradually becomes less convenient for people to make non-essential journeys by car they will transfer to other modes.

So looking at this on an entirely local level is wrong - it is essentially NIMBYism. I'm not saying that this means you can't talk about specific effects you are concerned about locally. But it needs to be considered in the wider question of whether it contributes to a citywide (ideally country-wide but that's another matter) effort to reduce car dominance. Thats why I am dismissive of complaints that in some individual circumstance, a journey might take a few minutes longer. That small sacrifice in convenience is completely worth it if it contributes to a wider change that can benefit everyone in the longer term - very possibly including that individual.

 

[Pickman's model]

Don't try and misrepresent me please.

you do such a good job yourself no one else need bother.

 

[Gramsci]

But it only works if you aim towards a change in the whole system. That comes about from lots of local level changes all over the city.

But it needs to be considered in the wider question of whether it contributes to a citywide (ideally country-wide but that's another matter) effort to reduce car dominance. .

I was up in Walthamstow to see my friend and they are bringing in road closures up there. So its London wide idea to reduce car dominance.

What should have happened is that TFL, Mayor and Lambeth should have explained more what the underlying philosophy behind this is. Whiich is as you say to reduce car use.

 

[teuchter]

Yes possibly.

Although I think some people will object whoever presents the argument.

Either it's a faceless monolith like TfL imposing its plans with no understanding of local issues. Or it's local busybodies trying to microengineer social cleansing under the false flag of grander principles.

 

[shifting gears]

Yes possibly.

Although I think some people will object whoever presents the argument.

Either it's a faceless monolith like TfL imposing its plans with no understanding of local issues. Or it's local busybodies trying to microengineer social cleansing under the false flag of grander principles.

Or it's an over-privileged cock trying to belittle people whose lives will actually be affected.

 

[LadyV]

Update on the start of the road closures from Cllr Jennifer Braithwaite.

"Thank you again for taking the time to get in touch on the experimental road closures at Loughborough Junction. All households and businesses should be receiving a letter in the next week or so with an update. However, as you’ve already made contact, I thought I’d give you a heads up.

The plan is to get started on Saturday 29th August. It might take a few days to make all the changes but once fully implemented the closures to through traffic will include:
· Loughborough Road, north of the junction with Ridgeway Road
· Barrington Road
· Calais Street
· Padfield Road
· Lilford Road, and
· Garden Grove

This is a six month experiment that will be kept under continuous observation. We anticipate starting to get a decent understanding of the trial’s impact after about 4weeks; will hold an interim review at 3months; and a final consultation and evaluation of the project’s effectiveness at 6months. Please find attached some additional information – this will also be available online before the end of August at www.lambeth.gov.uk/lj, but isn’t yet live.

Stockwell Partnership, a Lambeth-based community charity, have been appointed to manage on-going consultation and engagement with local residents and businesses – dates, times and venues will be advertised as soon as possible. On that note, following the recent Call In, local councillors in Coldharbour, Vassall and Herne Hill have made clear that they would like to ensure as many local people as possible are aware of and involved in this project. I am asking officers to help establish a councillor led tri-ward forum which meets regularly over the initial life of the project to discuss its impact and influence its outcome.

Once the project is up and running please feel free to send me your views. You can also contact the officers in charge, George Wright and Barbara Poulter, who are available on gwright@lambeth.gov.uk and bpoulter@lambeth.gov.uk respectively."

So it begins over the bank holiday, ready for lots of confusion come Tuesday morning when quite a few kids go back to school, think I might hibernate that day!

 

[leanderman]

I'd welcome a similar scheme here in lower Tulse Hill, where we can't even get adequate pedestrian crossings because cars come first.

 

[Beasley]

Signs are starting to go up already, these are on Loughborough Road:

 

[Bobzillard]

A letter from Lambeth about the scheme was posted through our door on Lilford Road this morning -- see below.
I would be interested to know if the area covered was any larger this time and if the letters have been posted to businesses and blocks of flats.

 

[cuppa tee]

A letter from Lambeth about the scheme was posted through our door on Lilford Road this morning -- see below.
I would be interested to know if the area covered was any larger this time and if the letters have been posted to businesses and blocks of flats.

the same letter was delivered to us and we were not consulted either.......