Loughborough Junction public space improvements - consultation begins

[Gramsci]

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.

I know someone who lives in Rosendale road area. They had the Tories coming around knocking on doors to whip up opposition to the proposals for that area. Told them he was Labour voter.

As you say its an area with different demographic to LJ.

 

[Gramsci]

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

Fair comments.

The problem I see is any changes will be generate opposition.

Controlled parking/ removing parking is likely to be opposed by local business. Its also likely to be opposed by those are used to free parking.

Changing roads to one way system to deter traffic using it as through route is used in other areas. Its would have same effect of causing annoyance to car drivers as this scheme has. It would work imo to reduce through traffic.

 

[Gramsci]

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.

I live in CHL and I didnt see it as selfish.

 

[bimble]

Have been away from my beloved keyboard for the last few days. It's felt like having mittens on.
I'm going to write something proper trying to explain why this apparent victory (for me as a non-driving, anti-pollution opponent to this scheme as executed) doesn't feel like a victory in the way I thought it might.

 

[Gramsci]

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

‘War’ breaks out in De Beauvoir over road closures

Unlike LJ this is not about trial closure.

Similar arguments about it going on up there.

All these schemes that are being planned or constructed in London are starting to be opposed. The De Beauvoir scheme is partly Hackney Council and TFL. Roads are shared between Councils and TFL. With TFL in charge of all main roads. So this is joint scheme between Council and TFL.

Anna Butler, who lives in Southgate Road, said CS1 was supposed to be an eco initiative but was becoming “very ungreen”.

She said: “Surely simple logic says, if you have 10 cars and 10 streets, it’s better to send one car down each, than have 10 all stuck in the same queue. Journeys are shorter, stationary traffic is reduced, pollution is able to dissipate and the burden is shared.

“Neighbours are pitted against each other – often in the same street – vociferously accusing one another of sneakily pressuring the council to increase their own house prices at others’ expense.

 

[irf520]

I don't think the closures proposed for the De Beauvoir area are entirely comparable to the LJ scheme. An approximate equivalent to the LJ scheme in that area would be closing Southgate Road.

 

[Beasley]

An approximate equivalent to the LJ scheme in that area would be closing Southgate Road.

I agree, and would add Englefield Road: they both carry bus routes.

However, I do now understand that the changes currently proposed there are more drastic than I first thought.
See: Citizen Space - Cycle Superhighway Route 1: Motor traffic reduction scheme for the De Beauvoir area

 

[Gramsci]

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

This is done in other cities. My Brazilian friend says that what happens is that the better off buy a second car. So they have one with odd and one with even numbers.So its not that egalitarian.

 

[Gramsci]

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.

There are temporary lights on the junction of CHL and Atlantic road. Temporary lights make a difference to how traffic can move.

Friday night I walked up to the Coop. On way up CHL traffic was backing up towards Brixton on way back the road was clear. How traffic moves on CHL can change quickly.

 

[Gramsci]

I don't think the closures proposed for the De Beauvoir area are entirely comparable to the LJ scheme. An approximate equivalent to the LJ scheme in that area would be closing Southgate Road.

What is interesting about the objections to the scheme is that they are similar to what you and others here have posted in relation to LJ scheme. As said in the article I posted up.

 

[Gramsci]

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]

Same could be said of Boris Ultra Low Emission Zone. I have van driving for a living friend who regard this as just another threat to his way of earning a living. He cannot afford to get a low emission vehicle. Unlike big outfits like DHL who already use electric vehicles in central London.

So its possible that small business could be pushed out of the delivery market to be replaced by bigger outfits like DHL who can plan and afford the change.

But the "masses" are likely to gain overall from better health outcomes.

 

[CH1]

Same could be said of Boris Ultra Low Emission Zone. I have van driving for a living friend who regard this as just another threat to his way of earning a living. He cannot afford to get a low emission vehicle. Unlike big outfits like DHL who already use electric vehicles in central London.

So its possible that small business could be pushed out of the delivery market to be replaced by bigger outfits like DHL who can plan and afford the change.

But the "masses" are likely to gain overall from better health outcomes.

I don't think it a good idea to preserve highly polluting vehicles. Actually a case could be made for subsidising small businesses to upgrade if they demonstrate they cannot afford to do so unassisted.

John Prescott tried to make central heating boiler upgrades more feasible like this - though in his case of course he did not means test the hand-out.

 

[Gramsci]

I agree, and would add Englefield Road: they both carry bus routes.

However, I do now understand that the changes currently proposed there are more drastic than I first thought.
See: Citizen Space - Cycle Superhighway Route 1: Motor traffic reduction scheme for the De Beauvoir area

Including permanently closing bottom of Pitfield street ( where there are a lot of shops and business bit like LJ. Probably why they have put in new loading bay nearby. ) turning it into cycle and pedestrian area only. Which will in practise stop traffic being able to go through the De Beauvoir area easily. As this route took one over the canal straight into De Beauvoir. So it is drastic.

There are business in the De Beauvoir area. Printing, advertising and photography. Its a mixture of Council housing and private if one includes area just north of Pitfield street.

The total effect of scheme will be to make traffic use the main roads. With non main roads like Southgate potentially getting more traffic. Also some road space will be taken by cycle highway. Looks to me like the east side of Old street roundabout will lose road space as well to wider pavements.

Same is happening in Whitehall. With the cycle scheme there and as well as improved pavement space for pedestrians.

All these things will add up to affecting the motorist in central London.

The objections to LJ scheme are not unique to this particular scheme is the point I was making. When its happening in ones own area then it raises a lot of strong feelings either way.

 

[irf520]

Including permanently closing bottom of Pitfield street ( where there are a lot of shops and business bit like LJ. Probably why they have put in new loading bay nearby. ) turning it into cycle and pedestrian area only. Which will in practise stop traffic being able to go through the De Beauvoir area easily. As this route took one over the canal straight into De Beauvoir. So it is drastic.

Looks to me like the closure at the southern end of Pitfield St is easily circumvented by using Coronet St and Boot St. Although now you will only be able to get as far as Downham Rd before you have to turn off.

Same is happening in Whitehall. With the cycle scheme there and as well as improved pavement space for pedestrians.

Haven't heard about that one yet.

The objections to LJ scheme are not unique to this particular scheme is the point I was making. When its happening in ones own area then it raises a lot of strong feelings either way.

Agreed. However the thing which particularly struck me about the LJ scheme is the fact they wanted to close such a busy road. I don't drive around the De Beauvoir area that often, but when I have done so it didn't seem as busy as Loughborough Rd. If they had just suggested closing Padfield Rd and Calais St from the beginning I doubt there would have been anywhere near the level of opposition.

 

[bimble]

Having had a couple of days to ponder why the announcement didn’t make me want to dance round the kitchen shouting "we’ve won!” basically it’s a bit like this:

If this scheme had been a well designed and well explained environmental measure to reduce unnecessary car use and improve air quality I personally would have been all for it.

Now that it’s been scrapped there seems to no longer be any scrutiny of the actual closures we’ve been discussing here for months and instead the whole thing's being painted as a noble progressive environmental measure that’s been defeated by a bunch of vociferous motorists. And that’s just wrong.

Lambeth Council have made a complete pigs ear of the whole thing from start to finish, it's been a total shambles at every point from its inception to its scrapping, with no clarity whatsoever as to why they introduced it, why they decided to close the roads they closed, what the effects of it actually were or why exactly they have now scrapped it.
So what exactly has been lost or won is totally unclear to me - but it is clear that the people who feel they are the 'losers' in this decision are ignoring all the specifics and just seeing it as a black & white cars versus clean air issue eg .

A victory for pollution, congestion, traffic and dangerous streets.

The available evidence does not support that view at all.
Admittedly, due to the pigs ear made of this throughout, the evidence doesn't say anything much either way but if this had been a properly thought through environmental/ pollution reduction measure the whole thing would have played out completely differently.

For a start, they would have had the guts to measure the traffic properly.
As it is, the ‘results’ we have - as to what difference this scheme made to traffic locally - are a joke:
The report says “ Speed and volume traffic counts were taken at 23 locations across the project area between 15 October and 21 October. ”
That is exactly in the middle of half term, as we know.
It goes on to announce that “These measurements yielded the result that there’s been on average “ a 5% reduction in traffic."
Which tells us absolutely nothing, seeing as apparently (according to Department of Environment and Transport) "school runs" account for 20 per cent of vehicles on the road during the morning peak in London as a whole.
So, we know nothing at all about whether or not this scheme actually reduced car use.

We also know nothing about whether it improved air quality, because all the report has to say on this subject is the very impressive: "No reliable air quality data can be established. Having consulted experts, a correlation between traffic congestion and air quality can be assumed"

Just to be clear, I AM happy the closures are being reversed, particularly as the corner I live on is acknowledged in Lambeth's report as an example of where the road has been made significantly more dangerous by the changes. I'm really looking forward to the 7 NO ENTRY signs outside my window being removed.

 

[teuchter]

Yes, Lambeth are largely to blame for making a pig's ear of it.

But the reason we don't have much useful information is that the scheme was not allowed to run for the period it needed to.

And that's partly because a lot of people were too impatient to wait for that to happen, and that I think includes you.

 

[bimble]

As I tried to say above, if this was a well thought through and defensible environmental measure they would have stuck to their guns and persevered until some useful data could have been amassed. As others have pointed out, every scheme that restricts traffic faces strong opposition. If this one had been a good solid scheme with rational planning behind it I don't see why they would have buckled under pressure from opposition voices.

If Lambeth believed in this scheme they should have defended it, at least for 6 months. So, why didn't they?
One answer is that they just looked at the amount of angry messages they were getting and decided it wasn't worth loosing their footing on the greasy pole. The other is that they had no solid basis from which to defend the scheme. Either way, the blame lies with the council, not 'people like me'.

 

[bimble]

Burning paint really stinks. (who'd have guessed). But

 

[irf520]

As I tried to say above, if this was a well thought through and defensible environmental measure they would have stuck to their guns and persevered until some useful data could have been amassed. As others have pointed out, every scheme that restricts traffic faces strong opposition. If this one had been a good solid scheme with rational planning behind it I don't see why they would have buckled under pressure from opposition voices.

By the way, found this a while ago and it kind of underlines what I mean:
The Ranty Highwayman: The Cycle Of Acceptance
If Lambeth believed in this scheme they should have defended it, at least for 6 months. So, why didn't they?
One answer is that they just looked at the amount of angry messages they were getting and decided it wasn't worth loosing their footing on the greasy pole. The other is that they had no solid basis from which to defend the scheme. Either way, the blame lies with the council, not 'people like me'.

The problem with this scheme was it was purely based on ideology and didn't solve any real world problems. As far as I remember there was never a problem with congestion on Loughborough Road. It was busy, yes, but not congested. So why push traffic from there into the centre of Brixton which does have a problem with congestion? How could you defend such a choice?

 

[ChrisSouth]

As I tried to say above, if this was [a] well thought through

The point of trials is that they don't have to be well thought through. That's why things are being trialled, to see if they work. If it was 100% thought through, will all consequences (intended and unintended) modelled and assessed, it wouldn't be a trial and it would just be implemented there and then, with no consultation.

I think that you misunderstand what trialling and piloting is.

So this was quite an innovative way of piloting something to assess its impact. I’ve never known Lambeth do that before. I actually think they should be applauded for relatively low cost trialling. But we’ll never know its impact because you contributed to the calls for it to end early.

Because of that am I meant to have my heart strings tugged because you’re not dancing round the kitchen?

And of course burning paint stinks. But it doesn’t stink as much, and isn’t as toxic, as petrol and diesel being consumed in an engine. But that’s what you’ve championed, a return to high volume traffic down LJ Road, stinks and toxicity and all. And very probably outside your window.

 

[teuchter]

The other is that they had no solid basis from which to defend the scheme.

What kind of "solid basis" would have convinced you (and other objectors) that completing the trial period would have been worthwhile?

 

[bimble]

ChrisSouth I don't think there's much point arguing with you here seeing as you are not interested in any alternatives or in what happens next.

Fuck that. I hope it's the end of the consultation and LJ Road becomes a car superhighway. For me, I don't care. I've got what I wanted, which was Padfield Road remaining closed. My nice middle class bit of gentrified south LJ is even quieter now. .

What I was trying to point out in my post above is that if they believed in the trial they should not have ended it after 3 months. That they decided to do so is really not my fault, honest.

 

[teuchter]

The problem with this scheme was it was purely based on ideology and didn't solve any real world problems. As far as I remember there was never a problem with congestion on Loughborough Road. It was busy, yes, but not congested. So why push traffic from there into the centre of Brixton which does have a problem with congestion? How could you defend such a choice?

It's as if the previous 116 pages of discussion on this thread didn't exist.

 

[bimble]

What kind of "solid basis" would have convinced you (and other objectors) that completing the trial period would have been worthwhile?

One thing that would have helped a lot for me would have been a proper plan for assessing both traffic and pollution, for example..

 

[teuchter]

One thing that would have helped a lot for me would have been a proper plan for assessing both traffic and pollution, for example..

70-odd before and after traffic count locations weren't enough for you, then?

How many would have been enough?

 

[bimble]

70-odd before and after traffic count locations weren't enough for you, then?
How many would have been enough?

My idea (correct me if I'm missing something here) was that in order to get an idea of what has changed you should measure the same places before and during.
Not just do an unspecified amount before, and then do 23 in the middle of the school holidays.

Do you have any comment to make on the statement in the council's report about air pollution? The one that goes "No reliable air quality data can be established. Having consulted experts, a correlation between traffic congestion and air quality can be assumed"

 

[teuchter]

What I was trying to point out in my post above is that if they believed in the trial they should not have ended it after 3 months. That they decided to do so is really not my fault, honest.

I think they did believe in it. The Lambeth guy was trying to explain their aims and methods of assessment at that meeting but couldn't actually do so because so many people were shouting over him. I think they decided to end it because it was clear that so many people weren't even interested in the results of the trial. They didn't want to find out about the real effects. And you were posting your survey of whether people wanted the scheme to continue, just a week or two from the start. Why would you do that if you had any real desire to encourage people to give the experiment a fair chance?

 

[irf520]

My idea (correct me if I'm missing something here) was that in order to get an idea of what has changed you should measure the same places before and during.
Not just do an unspecified amount before, and then do 23 in the middle of the school holidays.
Do you have any comment to make on the statement in the council's report about air pollution? The one that goes "No reliable air quality data can be established. Having consulted experts, a correlation between traffic congestion and air quality can be assumed"

Yes, there is a correlation between traffic congestion and air quality. So taking traffic away from a freely flowing route and adding it (or even a bit less if some people decided to walk instead) to an already congested route will make overall pollution worse, even if it improves it on the closed road.

 

[bimble]

I think they did believe in it. The Lambeth guy was trying to explain their aims and methods of assessment at that meeting but couldn't actually do so because so many people were shouting over him. I think they decided to end it because it was clear that so many people weren't even interested in the results of the trial. They didn't want to find out about the real effects. And you were posting your survey of whether people wanted the scheme to continue, just a week or two from the start. Why would you do that if you had any real desire to encourage people to give the experiment a fair chance?

Ok. It's all my fault, not Lambeth's.
They clearly had no choice but to bow to the pressure of me and a bunch of people like me.
It's also my fault that they had to count cars in the school holidays at only 23 locations. The consultation process is probably my fault too come to think of it and also the fact that there was absolutely no plan in place at any point to assess the impact this scheme would have on pollution. Sorry.

 

[teuchter]

My idea (correct me if I'm missing something here) was that in order to get an idea of what has changed you should measure the same places before and during.
Not just do an unspecified amount before, and then do 23 in the middle of the school holidays.

They did, as far as I understand, about 70 before, and the intention was to do the same 70 at the end, once the scheme had had a reasonable time to bed in. The mid-way count was brought forward because of the pressure to do so, and in any case was only a mid-way count which can't tell us much about what would have been happening 3 or 4 months in the future.

Do you have any comment to make on the statement in the council's report about air pollution? The one that goes "No reliable air quality data can be established. Having consulted experts, a correlation between traffic congestion and air quality can be assumed"

I think it's reasonable to say that. Conclusions about pollution could certainly have been drawn from full traffic count results at the end. Certainly, it could be assumed that streets with much less traffic on them would enjoy lower pollution levels.

Maybe they could have done much more extensive pollution surveys. But they would have cost money.

It may have been that at the end of the experimental period, there would be some locations where there were reasonable concerns that pollution had increased. In which case some resources could have been focussed on those in an attempt to determine the level of the problem.