Loughborough Junction public space improvements - consultation begins

[CH1]

But it was never just about me. It was being able to stand a make a statement that people were prepared to experiment and trial new ways of traffic flows, and think about ways of limiting car usage and improving pedestrian and cycling facilities.

It was about removing a freedom people IN SOCIAL HOUSING had enjoyed since their estate was built in 1956. And moreover the advocates of this barmy scheme were not social tenants, and not living n the affected area.

It was also damaging local businesses run by working class black and white people who did not have the benefit of university education like you.

If you want to be genuinely egalitarian do the Athens scheme - odd number car and even number cars on alternate days of the week.

 

[fredfelt]

In which case a local resident has called for the proposed Ultra Low Emission Zone to be extended to Lambeth. Would you support this?

If redesigning just one small area has such a negative impact on traffic and pollution as the opponents to this scheme claim then extending the LEZ, or indeed the Congestion charging zone has to be part of the solution. Clearly a broader set of measures is required.

It's outrageous that literally thousands of lives are being cut short in London every year due to air pollution. The people hit hardest by air pollution are usually the less well off - who have no option but to live on polluted roads where accommodation is cheaper. Residents who have to endure the pollution on a daily basis seem to take second place to anyone wishing to drive through their neighbourhood.

 

[fredfelt]

It was about removing a freedom people IN SOCIAL HOUSING had enjoyed since their estate was built in 1956. And moreover the advocates of this barmy scheme were not social tenants, and not living n the affected area.

It was also damaging local businesses run by working class black and white people who did not have the benefit of university education like you.

If you want to be genuinely egalitarian do the Athens scheme - odd number car and even number cars on alternate days of the week.

What freedom? Do you refer to a freedom that's only available to anyone privileged enough to have access to a car? I certainly haven't experienced freedom through driving in any part of London.

 

[critical1]

There was no representation on any official level from the ambulance service.
The paramedic who stood up at that meeting was unable to be contacted afterwards because although he was in uniform he was giving his own opinion.
Just another car driver objecting to having his commute altered.
If you have any evidence to the contrary please let us see it.

DUH! he's the Team Leader and did submit his report? This is the last bit of "evidence" I'm going to show you ricbake.

Watch from 10.30mins in

 

[LadyV]

And what do you suggest?

What I am no longer clear about is the position of the those here who opposed from the start this experiment.

From opposing this scheme appears to me that it slipped into opposing any reduction of car traffic. That roads should be left open so motorised traffic can find its way through London in the most "efficient" manner. That any interference with this will produce problems.

So my question is do you oppose changes to road use that will affect motorised traffic?

For example one of the earlier discussions here was that these road closures were in working class areas and why not reduce through traffic by doing it in "middle class" areas. Such as at Hinton road? To deter through traffic?

What do I suggest? On previous posts I've listed numerous things that could be done instead. My focus would be slowing traffic down but still keeping it moving. So things I've suggested in the past....

Controlled parking, residents only, then 3 hour limit for visitors so as not to affect trades, visitors, shoppers etc. but would deter the people that come and park in the area to be closer to the station or the tube. Also down by Myatts field, Knatchbull Road is a nightmare to negotiate on a bicycle or a car because of parked cars.
More zebra or pelican crossings
Raised table from Tescos to Co-op on CHL and then to the farm on Loughborough Road and up a bit on Herne Hill Road and Hinton Road.
Enforce the speed limit, more speed bumps etc
Remove one side of parking from Loughborough Road to Fiveways, build out proper cycle path there. Look at where else that could happen. Some roads are far too narrow but it's worth looking and seeing if removing parking could help.
Double yellows/no parking on at least one side of Loughborough Road from Fiveways to Brixton Road
Ditto Akerman Road from Fiveways
Look into roads that could be changed to one way for traffic to reduce the cut throughs

I'm not opposed to change, I just don't like being kettled, which if this plan had been implemented properly is how I think I would have felt. I don't feel like that right now or even during the trial because it wasn't done properly, there was still too much traffic due to the lack of cameras or enforcement. Much of my initial resistance to the scheme was a safety aspect, in my opinion (and before anyone asks, no I don't have the appropriate studies to back it up because I can't be bothered to go and find them and quite frankly I work in research so know how studies can be interpreted to comply with any agenda), passing traffic can offer a level of natural surveillance and therefore increase a feeling of security, with the loss of traffic, I thought that this would be reduced. As it came to pass, during the trial, I have still felt safe but like I said that was mostly due to the lack of compliance of the trial due to it's shocking implementation.

As for air quality, it's very hard for me to comment, I'm too close to the junction of CHL and LR I think to have noticed as air quality on CHL and that end of LR didn't improve. Neither did it improve on Brixton Road, and those are the two roads I walk along the most.

I would not have been opposed to the trial being completed as like many on here, I feel it needed to run it's course to be properly assessed but due to the way it was done, it was never going to succeed.

 

[LadyV]

So my question is do you oppose changes to road use that will affect motorised traffic?

Not at all but I feel it should be properly thought out and people consulted in a much more comprehensive way than this was

 

[LadyV]

Fuck that. I hope it's the end of the consultation and LJ Road becomes a car superhighway. That's what you wanted wasn't it? Freedom to move and roads be roads.

Not at all but I don't want to be kettled either. For me it's better to keep traffic moving, all this did was create bottlenecks and frustration. It's the council's fault that this didn't work, if they had consulted properly, implemented it properly, then maybe there wouldn't have been so much resistance but they didn't, so you reap what you sow.

 

[teuchter]

It was about removing a freedom people IN SOCIAL HOUSING had enjoyed since their estate was built in 1956. And moreover the advocates of this barmy scheme were not social tenants, and not living n the affected area.

It was also damaging local businesses run by working class black and white people who did not have the benefit of university education like you.

If you want to be genuinely egalitarian do the Athens scheme - odd number car and even number cars on alternate days of the week.

The gist of your post is that this scheme was against the interests of those in social housing etc because it is being argued for by people from the other side of the tracks. But this doesn't affect the validity of the many arguments that have been presented to say that this kind of scheme is in the interests of those who are less well off. You too, as far as I understand, are speaking from the other side of the tracks and not as a social housing tenant or working class business owner. And you seem to be defending the supposed rights of the minority of those social housing tenants who can afford to run a car. If you're going to apply the "middle class resident presuming to speak for the interests of estate residents" objection to others then it has to be applied to you and your opinions too.

And let's not forget that those most vocal in the opposition to this scheme included a QC from Dulwich and an ex-UKIP motorists' rights campaigner from Croydon.

I object to the implication that those of us who have been arguing in favour of these measures are doing so because of our own interests rather than a genuine belief that they can bring benefits to a much wider group of people. ChrisSouth pointed out that the closures wouldn't have benefitted him directly. It's the same for me - I wouldn't see any major benefits personally, other than the potential for less traffic passing through LJ generally. Without the closures, on the few occasions where I drive, I'll retain the small benefit of taking that route towards Stockwell rather than having to go via Brixton, leaving my small contribution to air pollution on the doorsteps of those who live along Loughborough Rd. Along with the twice-daily contributions of those who live in the leafier parts of south London who choose to drive to work when it would be quite feasible for them to switch to other modes. A switch they aren't going to make in a London where we capitulate to the demands of the motorist lobby as Lambeth have effectively done here. They didn't even dare to complete the experimental period that could have given us the more solid evidence to counter the various unsubstantiated claims that have been used to kill this scheme, and which in my opinion have been used to scare local people into acting on fears many of which are misplaced.

 

[Beasley]

evidence to counter the various unsubstantiated claims that have been used to kill this scheme

There were so many objections because the scheme itself was based on 'unsubstantiated claims'.

Now, at last there is the possibility of a new beginning and something good may come of it all.

 

[CH1]

The gist of your post is that this scheme was against the interests of those in social housing etc because it is being argued for by people from the other side of the tracks. But this doesn't affect the validity of the many arguments that have been presented to say that this kind of scheme is in the interests of those who are less well off. You too, as far as I understand, are speaking from the other side of the tracks and not as a social housing tenant or working class business owner. And you seem to be defending the supposed rights of the minority of those social housing tenants who can afford to run a car. If you're going to apply the "middle class resident presuming to speak for the interests of estate residents" objection to others then it has to be applied to you and your opinions too.

And let's not forget that those most vocal in the opposition to this scheme included a QC from Dulwich and an ex-UKIP motorists' rights campaigner from Croydon.

I object to the implication that those of us who have been arguing in favour of these measures are doing so because of our own interests rather than a genuine belief that they can bring benefits to a much wider group of people. ChrisSouth pointed out that the closures wouldn't have benefitted him directly. It's the same for me - I wouldn't see any major benefits personally, other than the potential for less traffic passing through LJ generally. Without the closures, on the few occasions where I drive, I'll retain the small benefit of taking that route towards Stockwell rather than having to go via Brixton, leaving my small contribution to air pollution on the doorsteps of those who live along Loughborough Rd. Along with the twice-daily contributions of those who live in the leafier parts of south London who choose to drive to work when it would be quite feasible for them to switch to other modes. A switch they aren't going to make in a London where we capitulate to the demands of the motorist lobby as Lambeth have effectively done here. They didn't even dare to complete the experimental period that could have given us the more solid evidence to counter the various unsubstantiated claims that have been used to kill this scheme, and which in my opinion have been used to scare local people into acting on fears many of which are misplaced.

Unlike you I used to be a councillor - and don't find it a problem representing the views of others in a less fortunate situation than myself.

As neither you or ChrisSouth would have personally benefited from these measures why were you so vocal in supporting them - against opposition to not only the residents concerned, but their elected councillors also?

You (plural) are not being logical. You appear to have environmental beliefs which may be good in themselves, but become oppressive if applied without the consent of the "masses". You wish to take the short-cut method to political salvation like Stalin - but we do still live in a democracy. Maybe a few days in the public gallery at the trial of Regina v Comrade Bala might bring you down to earth. [Southwark Crown Court - court 4]

 

[teuchter]

Unlike you I used to be a councillor - and don't find it a problem representing the views of others in a less fortunate situation than myself.

As neither you or ChrisSouth would have personally benefited from these measures why were you so vocal in supporting them - against opposition to not only the residents concerned, but their elected councillors also?

You (plural) are not being logical. You appear to have environmental beliefs which may be good in themselves, but become oppressive if applied without the consent of the "masses". You wish to take the short-cut method to political salvation like Stalin - but we do still live in a democracy. Maybe a few days in the public gallery at the trial of Regina v Comrade Bala might bring you down to earth. [Southwark Crown Court - court 4]

What I had been supporting was the proper implementation of the experimental period so that the decision about whether or not the scheme should continue could have been made on the basis of decent evidence about its effects, rather than speculation and scareongering. I have been quite careful to make clear that I would not have supported continuation of the full scheme regardless of the results.

I feel that the direction your comments are trying to take is one which is to lead me into a situation where I end up saying that the "masses" are stupid, don't know what is good for them, and that I (portrayed as naive middle class do-gooder) simply know better, and that's the end of the matter. You even go so far as to compare me to a repressive dictator, a murderer and a cult leader.

My position is pretty straightforward - I have a long standing interest in transport issues and the problems of car dependancy which means that in addition to having done a certain amount of reading on these subjects, for many years I have observed attempts to implement various measures which tip the advantage away from private motorists and toward those dependent on other modes. And if you observe enough of these things, the arguments and tactics used to oppose become quite familiar. Many of these arguments are based on falsehoods - either to do with disregarding precedent and evidence gathered now over a number of decades - or by simple exaggeration or misrepresentation of the reality of the effects.

It's my opinion that both of those things have happened here, and it's why I've been trying to make an argument on this thread that's based on the extensive knowledge we already have, and also on an examination of whether the problems being presented to people as fact actually match up with reality.

You talk of the "masses" - firstly I don't accept that it's a given that the majority of local residents strongly opposed the trial. They may have done but we don't have enough information to be sure. The results of the official consultation may not have been representative but neither were the petitions.

But even if there were a majority of locals in opposition, I believe that much of that opposition was based on fears about problems that aren't real. This is because I have been watching the claims made by the anti- campaign and I have seen plenty that simply isn't true. I would not say that the "masses" are stupid but I'm not afraid to say they may have been misinformed. You talk about their democratically elected representatives. I don't think those representatives have been doing their job. They do not to me appear to have been making proper efforts to check basic factual information and filter out what is essentially propaganda put out by those with an interest in scuppering the scheme. We now see that they have opted to abandon the whole trial, so as to satisfy a vocally expressed opinion largely based on emotive and unsubstantiated claims, instead of completing the trial period which would have allowed us to make a decision based more on reality. It's what I would call intellectual cowardice and I note that something similar seems to have affected our favourite local community news website which has been unusually silent on this whole matter.

 

[teuchter]

And by the way on the subject of intellectual cowardice - I want to give a thumbs-up to Gramsci who has demonstrated the opposite by sticking to his guns on this debate despite finding himself at odds with many people who on other issues he might normally be aligned with. And he has to defend his views in the real world too, unlike me ranting mostly from behind a screen of internet anonymity.

 

[critical1]

My general observations this afternoon at 3:15pm of Loughborough Junction, Coldharbour Lane, Barrington Road and Loughborough Road.


Loughborough Juction


Loughborough Road


Barrington Road

Barrington Road. A car undecided whether to go through or not.


Barrington Road


Barrington Road



Coldharbour Lane

 

[CH1]

You talk about their democratically elected representatives. I don't think those representatives have been doing their job. They do not to me appear to have been making proper efforts to check basic factual information and filter out what is essentially propaganda put out by those with an interest in scuppering the scheme. We now see that they have opted to abandon the whole trial, so as to satisfy a vocally expressed opinion largely based on emotive and unsubstantiated claims, instead of completing the trial period which would have allowed us to make a decision based more on reality. It's what I would call intellectual cowardice and I note that something similar seems to have affected our favourite local community news website which has been unusually silent on this whole matter.

I think on the contrary the councillors were doing their job - articulating the concerns of their constituents.

As for Gramsci conducting the debate in a civilised way and having regard to the evidence - how can I disagree. Out of anybody he probably has the most experience of the various traffic schemes in London from the perspective of a road user, and also contacts in various areas concerned.

But the fact remains the Loughborough Road scheme was supremely compromised in terms of what evidence could be used to assess it. This being the case the evaluation for local people was based on "how has it made my life better?" - and many people thought it actually made their life worse.

I agree that car ownership should be reduced in London, in England, and in the world.
But why pick on a council estate in Brixton to apply this strategy in a micro environment? That is discrimination.

 

[teuchter]

But the fact remains the Loughborough Road scheme was supremely compromised in terms of what evidence could be used to assess it. This being the case the evaluation for local people was based on "how has it made my life better?" - and many people thought it actually made their life worse.

I don't think anyone could make a proper evaluation of this in the time allowed (and that incudes people like me who support this stuff in principle). This is the whole reason it was supposed to run for 6 months. With many of these things, a significant amount of the opposition dissipates when people find either that the predicted horrors don't materialise, or that problems experienced imediately after implementation disappear once people settle into new patterns.

We had already started to see the congestion on CHL reduce - and this congestion was one of the major reasons for the objections.

Such a waste of time, money and most of all, opportunity, to chuck it all in, once the investment had already been made, and just at the point where we were starting to see the initial problems subside.

 

[teuchter]

I agree that car ownership should be reduced in London, in England, and in the world.
But why pick on a council estate in Brixton to apply this strategy in a micro environment? That is discrimination.

You are (yet again) making out like this was unprecedented and unique. It's neither. There are lots of small schemes like this around London, either already implemented, proposed, or failed like this one. There was the attempt to make closures on Rosendale Rd, somewhere with a completely different demographic. That was scuppered too. This is not about "picking on" anyone. It was taking an opportunity where there was one, and I don't accept your premise that it would make life worse for people on the council estate. It could have made things better.

 

[critical1]

I don't think anyone could make a proper evaluation....(that is why you went out to take photos as "evidence" as you claim at 8:30am)

We had already started to see the congestion on CHL reduce - and this congestion was one of the major reasons for the objections. (It was a bit more than that have you seen the video above for what people were saying!)

Such a waste of time, money and most of all, opportunity, to chuck it all in, once the investment had already been made, and just at the point where we were starting to see the initial problems subside.

Initial problems was lack of consultation and it continues, even today at 3:30pm the side roads are congested, just look at the images I posted today.

It appears that the new Experimental road closures have not been consulted, but have just appeared.

A wasted opportunity yes, due to lack of proper engaging consultation.

 

[teuchter]

Initial problems was lack of consultation and it continues, even today at 3:30pm the side roads are congested, just look at the images I posted today.

Every one of your photos shows a lengthy open stretch of road in front of you. These are not very convincing illustrations of congestion. Given that you are motivated to time your photos to show maximum congestion, you haven't done very well.

 

[critical1]

Every one of your photos shows a lengthy open stretch of road in front of you. These are not very convincing illustrations of congestion. Given that you are motivated to time your photos to show maximum congestion, you haven't done very well.

As I was in a moving vehicle returning to my abode it was not possible to time my shots as you claim, unlike yourself who took time to compose your photos.

I just took photos as they appeared if you noticed the road in front of me on Coldharbour Lane is full of traffic just that I hadn't met the lights.

As previously stated it was not at rush hour, so ther you go.... Half congestion on the side roads then, and at rush hour full congestion.

In any case I was just showing the amount of traffic on the side roads especially Barrington Road and Loughborough Road, due to the current closures.

 

[snowy_again]

From a casual observers perspective, it just shows traffic - neither bad or good traffic. I could point out that in most of the photos there's no traffic in front of you, but anecdata as we know isn't something to make policy on.

IMO - this is a lost opportunity - the original consultation and the explanation of what the scheme was intended to do was done badly - and as a result the scheme was always destined to fail.

LB Lambeth's ineptitude; I guess as a consequence of poor planning/management/communication and a lack of financial resources to fix their initial fuck ups.

Plus every stakeholder Councillor; on seeing it's temporarily unpopular (as it changes ingrained habits) is going to make a knee jerk response that ensures they get elected again.

What was tried isn't new - it's happening across the whole country in response to research based evidence from across Europe to reduce CO2 levels, increase average life expectancy and create a better living environment.

If lots of people think it was for Andrea's own personal gain and the gentrification of LJ; then it needs to go back and start consulting again on what the people who live on the estates and the areas around them want their homes and communities to be like. If they decide that streets made for all of us are in fact owned and controlled by private vehicles* so be it. People can live with the consequences.

*Buses / Emergency services / delivery / traders should be treated differently through thinking differently about permission to drive on some streets / junctions.

 

[critical1]

I'm now hearing a lot of....

 

[toblerone3]

Eight weeks is a ridiculously short to time to allow a scheme such as the Coldharbour one to bed in. Its a shame that the politicians in Lambeth appear to have bottled it. Hoping that the success of some of the other schemes going in elsewhere in London can give Lambeth politicians a bit more courage to persist. In addition to the Walthamstow and Blackhorse Road area road closures there is a big new scheme being consulted on in Hackney.

Citizen Space - Cycle Superhighway Route 1: Motor traffic reduction scheme for the De Beauvoir area

 

[Barrie]

Spin it may be but no one who has supported the scheme has answered the question 'why should the residents around Loughborough Rd benefit from a reduction in traffic to the cost of others who subsequently receive it?'
It's such a selfish point of view as we all need to share the burden.

 

[teuchter]

Spin it may be but no one who has supported the scheme has answered the question 'why should the residents around Loughborough Rd benefit from a reduction in traffic to the cost of others who subsequently receive it?'
It's such a selfish point of view as we all need to share the burden.

Your question, which is based largely on a false premise, has been addressed multiple times in the course of this thread.

 

[toblerone3]

Spin it may be but no one who has supported the scheme has answered the question 'why should the residents around Loughborough Rd benefit from a reduction in traffic to the cost of others who subsequently receive it?'
It's such a selfish point of view as we all need to share the burden.

Traffic is not a zero sum game. That is a big part of the idea.

Disappearing traffic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Traffic Evaporation
Taking Road Space Away From Cars Won't Create Traffic Jams

It does take time for schemes to bed in and for drivers to find alternatives though.

 

[critical1]

And more spin...

 

[ChrisSouth]

Thanks for helping not to reduce polluting motorised traffic in built up inner city residential areas. Said no one ever.

 

[Beasley]

there is a big new scheme being consulted on in Hackney.

De Beauvoir Town has been mentioned several times in this thread and it was cited by Lambeth cyclists as their inspiration. I cycled over there during the consultation period to take a look and found a very different area from Loughborough Junction. It does have road closures but two of the principal roads are presently left open for through traffic which includes buses. The road closure scheme there looks to have been more sensitively planned when originally set up about 10 years ago.

Quite likely, the new proposals for further road closures in De Beauvoir Town will have a better chance of success than the Loughborough Junction scheme. This must be in part because the changes there have been gradual and the area is much more residential, much less industrial and not already divided up by Victorian railway lines.

 

[fredfelt]

Traffic is not a zero sum game. That is a big part of the idea.

Disappearing traffic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Traffic Evaporation
Taking Road Space Away From Cars Won't Create Traffic Jams

It does take time for schemes to bed in and for drivers to find alternatives though.

The reverse is also certainly true. Build more roads, get more traffic. On the announcement of a £15bn 'upgrade' to the M25...

Don't believe it? Well neither did the Major government in the 1990s.

Faced with opposition to their own road-building plans, Major commissioned a report seeking to disprove the theory beloved of environmentalists, that new roads simply induced new traffic.

Instead they found extensive evidence that "induced traffic" can and does occur when roads are built or widened. They found that when trunk roads are already running beyond capacity, widening them simply exacerbates the original problem.
​

George Osborne's £15 billion road to nowhere

 

[critical1]

De Beauvoir Town has been mentioned several times in this thread and it was cited by Lambeth cyclists as their inspiration. I cycled over there during the consultation period to take a look and found a very different area from Loughborough Junction. It does have road closures but two of the principal roads are presently left open for through traffic which includes buses. The road closure scheme there looks to have been more sensitively planned when originally set up about 10 years ago.

Quite likely, the new proposals for further road closures in De Beauvoir Town will have a better chance of success than the Loughborough Junction scheme. This must be in part because the changes there have been gradual and the area is much more residential, much less industrial and not already divided up by Victorian railway lines.

De Beauvoir is also probably not pushed onto the residents but consulted upon properly, I notice a lot of consultations especially with TFL occur in other areas with much smaller traffic flow.
Was it considered a done deal in Loughborough.. just push it through, we know whats best for them attitude. Because that is what appears to have happened and been defeated by the obviouse responses

The consultation process seems to be remarkably well run by TFL as opposed to the sloppy joes organised by Lambeth and (poor) LJAG