Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Loughborough Junction public space improvements - consultation begins

it is really daunting for a beginner (I mean, I can ride a bike fine, obviously, but navigating the city is seriously scary). Especially if you lack a certain aggression / ownership of the road stance which I think only comes with time.
 
bimble said:
it is really daunting for a beginner (I mean, I can ride a bike fine, obviously, but navigating the city is seriously scary). Especially if you lack a certain aggression / ownership of the road stance which I think only comes with time.
Click to expand...

Some boroughs offer free cycling training. Don't know whether it's been hit by austerity.
 
bimble said:
it is really daunting for a beginner (I mean, I can ride a bike fine, obviously, but navigating the city is seriously scary). Especially if you lack a certain aggression / ownership of the road stance which I think only comes with time.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is. Which is why creating a network of quiet routes for cyclists could make a big difference to encouraging more people to start cycling. It's a shame so many Londoners seem to want to trash the potential for that though isn't it?
 
teuchter said:
What you are proposing is a measure to increase convenience to car drivers, and the traffic capacity of that section of road, and therefore increase the amount of traffic on LR. Is that what you want?

Or do you mean removing the parked cars and replacing them with dedicated cycle lanes, so that cyclists can benefit from being separated from the congestion caused by unecessary motor vehicle journeys?
Click to expand...

No if anything I would prefer to make it less palatable for drivers to drive down that section of road and reduce the number of cars, so make it one way for cars and remove some parked cars to create more space for everyone who wishes to use the road, cars, bicycles, skateboards anything, at the moment it's not good for anyone.

And we're on the same page about unnecessary car journeys, there are far too many of them, it's just the definition of what is unnecessary that we're still working out! :)
 
LadyV said:
No if anything I would prefer to make it less palatable for drivers to drive down that section of road and reduce the number of cars, so make it one way for cars and remove some parked cars to create more space for everyone who wishes to use the road, cars, bicycles, skateboards anything, at the moment it's not good for anyone.
Click to expand...

But what about the people who have parked near their homes on that stretch for ever? You are going to take this privilege away from them, you Stalinist?

And if you make it one way, then aren't you effectively making a road closure (in one direction)?

Or, if you're proposing another road takes the traffic in the opposite direction, then aren't you introducing a load of non-local traffic onto a previously quiet road?

The reason I make these points is that virtually any measure you take to meaningfully change things is going to result in lots of people popping up with essentially the same kinds of objections that we saw in the trial.

It's easy for people to dismiss the trial scheme saying "oh but we would support some kind of different traffic reduction scheme instead" and give some non-specific statements about alternatives, and then, when someone actually has to think up a new scheme that works, they will face those same people who will be back dismissing it for much the same reasons, and that revised scheme won't necessarily be any easier to bring about than the one we've just discarded.

My prediction is that what will now happen is the whole thing will just get quietly forgotten and nothing will really be done at all for the next 5 or 10 years. Or, we will get some kind of half-baked scheme that has no meaningful impact on traffic levels and transport habits, because the council is too scared of the road nutters.

But I will be pleased to be proven wrong.
 
teuchter said:
But what about the people who have parked near their homes on that stretch for ever? You are going to take this privilege away from them, you Stalinist?

And if you make it one way, then aren't you effectively making a road closure (in one direction)?

Or, if you're proposing another road takes the traffic in the opposite direction, then aren't you introducing a load of non-local traffic onto a previously quiet road?

The reason I make these points is that virtually any measure you take to meaningfully change things is going to result in lots of people popping up with essentially the same kinds of objections that we saw in the trial.

It's easy for people to dismiss the trial scheme saying "oh but we would support some kind of different traffic reduction scheme instead" and give some non-specific statements about alternatives, and then, when someone actually has to think up a new scheme that works, they will face those same people who will be back dismissing it for much the same reasons, and that revised scheme won't necessarily be any easier to bring about than the one we've just discarded.

My prediction is that what will now happen is the whole thing will just get quietly forgotten and nothing will really be done at all for the next 5 or 10 years. Or, we will get some kind of half-baked scheme that has no meaningful impact on traffic levels and transport habits, because the council is too scared of the road nutters.

But I will be pleased to be proven wrong.
Click to expand...


Ooh someone's grumpy today! Stalinist? That's a new one, I've never been called that before!

As for the people on that stretch, you and others on here keeping on telling us that Lambeth has such low car ownership so are you sure those cars belong to people who live there? Especially as no-one in the area can afford one apparently, according to some people on here cars are such a luxury item. They definitely can't belong to people who live in the area.

When it comes down to it, you know what, I'm not a traffic planner and have claimed to be, I haven't got a bloody clue but at least I've suggested things rather than just bashing down everything anyone suggests, what have you suggested? None of us know really what will work and what will not, including the so-called experts, they bugger it up too.

Nothing is going to work for everyone but whatever you may believe drivers have just as much right to be on the roads as anyone else, should they get priority? No, they have to share like everyone else, but so do cyclists. But should drivers be demonised for wanting to do something that is perfectly legal for them to do? No they shouldn't. However that's not to say that they shouldn't be encouraged to leave their cars at home when they can.

And of course people are going complain when something affects them but if the council learn from their mistakes, maybe progress can be made by taking things slowly.

The failure of this experiment was not just about the closures but the way it was carried out from start to finish and the blame for that lies at the feet of the council and its staff. As for it's cancellation, the primary reason it was cancelled was because the Fire Brigade complained, without that objection, even with the petition, I think that Jennifer Braithwaite could have made a bold and probably unpopular decision to keep the closures in places to collect more data and to allow it to bed in properly and hope that everyone just got on with it. But she could not ignore that objection, she would be setting herself up for a huge fall if she had. The LFB wouldn't have made that objection if they weren't having issues getting around as the closures did cause some odd bottlenecks that an engine would be delayed by, no one would want to deal with the possible consequences of an engine being delayed.

I think it would be sad if the general plans for improvements were forgotten about because it wasn't just about traffic levels, it was about brightening up the whole area and that has now been soured. Hopefully the more general improvements to the area can be reintroduced without the confusion of road closures and accusations of gentrification but only time will tell.
 
bimble said:
it is really daunting for a beginner (I mean, I can ride a bike fine, obviously, but navigating the city is seriously scary). Especially if you lack a certain aggression / ownership of the road stance which I think only comes with time.
Click to expand...

This is where the new cycle highways will make a difference. Problems is they will be good as commuter routes but not navigating the city.

My view, as I cycle around City and West End all day, is that being aggressive is not how to do it. Thats common with all drivers I know. If someone cuts u up just let it go. Bad for ones blood pressure. Bit of courtesy for others makes for Karma. If a Black Cab looks like its going to pull in to get a fare I let them do it. Its not being aggressive its learning to have a "second sense".

The problem with cycling in City/West End is that most users do it all the time and know the junctions. Drivers imo are much better at noticing cyclist than they used to be. However if u do not "know" the roads traffic is pretty unforgiving if u hesitate in West End.

Being a bit scared of traffic is healthy. I err on side of caution and never had an accident.

Its not cycling aggressively its making sure drivers can see u. Donts imo are do not cycle whilst listening to ipod, look around at regular intervals and learn to "read" the traffic. ie I look at drivers to see if they have eyes on road or are on there mobile, chatting etc.

Also think ahead. If it looks dodgy pull back and see what to do. Its not a race.

Also , and I know this is not an option for all, is to go fast sometimes. ie at Hyde Park Corner. You really have to get going. It actually annoys car drivers less.

To "learn" the City try going on a Sunday when its empty. One thing people who do it all the time is that they know when lights will change and which lights change first. ie at Bank.
 
Last edited:
LadyV said:
I work near Bloomsbury so I'm seeing those changes coming together, I think it's easier for Camden to get those through because although there are residential properties in the area, I would imagine car ownership levels are very low due to where they are. Plus add in the high numbers of students in the area means there are less people to consult.

Can I ask what your thoughts on the cycle super highways are? I was out with some friends last night who regularly cycle from Surrey into Central London and their comments were not that positive
Click to expand...

I agree. There is little on parking available in central London on estates , unlike LJ estate, so I agree car ownership is low. As alternative central London is well covered by Car Clubs.

The Cycle highways. Cant praise Boris more , even though I detest Tories, for them. I have started to use the finished bits and its so different to not have to be in traffic.

Met Boris once on his bike.
 
LadyV said:
Ooh someone's grumpy today! Stalinist? That's a new one, I've never been called that before!

As for the people on that stretch, you and others on here keeping on telling us that Lambeth has such low car ownership so are you sure those cars belong to people who live there? Especially as no-one in the area can afford one apparently, according to some people on here cars are such a luxury item. They definitely can't belong to people who live in the area.

Nothing is going to work for everyone but whatever you may believe drivers have just as much right to be on the roads as anyone else, should they get priority? No, they have to share like everyone else, but so do cyclists. But should drivers be demonised for wanting to do something that is perfectly legal for them to do? No they shouldn't. However that's not to say that they shouldn't be encouraged to leave their cars at home when they can.

I think it would be sad if the general plans for improvements were forgotten about because it wasn't just about traffic levels, it was about brightening up the whole area and that has now been soured. Hopefully the more general improvements to the area can be reintroduced without the confusion of road closures and accusations of gentrification but only time will tell.
Click to expand...

teuchter is making the same point and reservations about what will happen now as I have.

That any alternatives will have vocal opposition. ie stopping parking on sections of Loughborough road. Bringing in road closures in the "middle class" areas such as Hinton road to deter through traffic.

The thing about the cyclist, who are derided here by some, is that one less car driver and one more cyclist frees up road space and is decreasing pollution. I have seen big increase in cyclist commuting to work in City and West End in past years. With all the posts about "middle class" cyclist on expensive bikes I have taken more notice of bikes and the people who ride them. I do not see this. A lot of the new commuters are riding middle of the range bikes. Some I know are using the ride to work scheme were u can get bike through the company one works for at a discount.
 
LadyV said:
Ooh someone's grumpy today! Stalinist? That's a new one, I've never been called that before!

As for the people on that stretch, you and others on here keeping on telling us that Lambeth has such low car ownership so are you sure those cars belong to people who live there? Especially as no-one in the area can afford one apparently, according to some people on here cars are such a luxury item. They definitely can't belong to people who live in the area.
Click to expand...

I think you've misinterpreted the direction of my post somewhat; it was a reference to the fact that I have been described as a Stalinist on this thread for proposing such things as making relatively minor adjustments to people's "right" to park and drive their privately owned cars on the public highway without restriction.
 
LadyV said:
whatever you may believe drivers have just as much right to be on the roads as anyone else, should they get priority? No, they have to share like everyone else, but so do cyclists. But should drivers be demonised for wanting to do something that is perfectly legal for them to do? No they shouldn't.
Click to expand...
This notion that drivers "share" the road - what's your measure of a fair share? Is your fair share of roadspace determined by the size of vehicle that you choose to drive on it? If you own a car does that mean your fair share of roadspace is ten times that of a bicycle owner, or bus passenger?
 
LadyV said:
As for it's cancellation, the primary reason it was cancelled was because the Fire Brigade complained, without that objection, even with the petition, I think that Jennifer Braithwaite could have made a bold and probably unpopular decision to keep the closures in places to collect more data and to allow it to bed in properly and hope that everyone just got on with it. But she could not ignore that objection, she would be setting herself up for a huge fall if she had. The LFB wouldn't have made that objection if they weren't having issues getting around as the closures did cause some odd bottlenecks that an engine would be delayed by, no one would want to deal with the possible consequences of an engine being delayed.
Click to expand...
And on the subject of the Fire Brigade objection - here's what it actually amounted to (the email correspondence is in the appendix to the Lambeth report) -

On the 9th of October (so still very soon after the start of the trial) the station manager writes to Lambeth saying

Further to our conversation earlier on today I would like to confirm in writing our current objections to the Loughborough Junction Experimental Pedestrian Zone based on the following information and facts received from officers and fire-fighters at Brixton fire Station:-
  • Gridlocked roads throughout the Coldharbour Lane area
  • Specifically total gridlock at most times of the day and evening in Coldharbour Lane, Herne Hill Road, Hinton Road, Gresham Road and Barrington road to name but a few.
  • Antisocial behaviour and poor/dangerous driving being witnessed by drivers including 3 point turns on crowed roads and driving on pavements
  • A significant knock on effect to surrounding roads as commuters and residents try and circumvent the closures
  • Coldharbour Lane is Primary Route for attending incidents and as such we have experienced

    reduced attendance times
    o For Brixton Fire Station heading towards the East of the Borough
    o Reduced attendance times to Kings College Hospital –the stations largest risk
    o Reduced attendance times for all othe Fire Appliances attending from the west of the Borough who use this access route including Clapham , West Norwood and Battersea
• We have attendance times of the first appliance in 6 minutes and the second within 8 minutes. We are very closely monitored on these standards, particularly if there is a death or serious injury within the Borough.

In the opinion of some of my longer serving officers at Brixton they have never known such a build up of congestion in all their time at the station and in the strongest possible terms would like their objections to this scheme noted on the above mentions points. I’m sure they could provide more specific examples if required at a later date if necessary.
Click to expand...

What this looks like to me is anecdata, supplied in the earlier period of the closures and all relating to congestion, which as we all know subsided significantly as time went on. Also, as I mentiond previously, I was not aware of "gridlock" on Herne Hill Road nor Hinton Rd at any point (in fact I think I remember a claim at some point that the car wash business on Hinton Rd was in danger of going under because their passing trade had diminished so substantially).

Lambeth then, rightly, questioned these claims, asking fo specific evidence to support them, to which the reply was:

Further to your recent request I’m afraid that I am unable to provide any specifics to the congestion within the Loughborough Junction Area. One of the main causes for concern were the attendance times for appliances travelling in an easterly direction along Coldharbour Lane. This road forms a primary route for not only Brixton’s appliances but also any additional appliances travelling from further west. In particular of interest are the Hospitals on Denmark Hill. I’m afraid the empirical data is insufficient at this time to make a true contrast between the pre and post experimental zone implementation dates. In order to be truly accurate I would be required to extrapolate data from similar times and days in the week in order to present a true reflection of the impact. I’m afraid an 8 week timeframe is too short and thus we are left with personal accounts of congestion and confusion only

I am sorry that I cannot be of further help in this matter but I may be able to update this status in a few months time. I hope this helps
Click to expand...

So, they are saying all they've got is personal accounts, and they are also saying that an 8 week timeframe is too short to provide meaningful data.

Lambeth then write to them on the 5th of November pointing out the issues with the temporary lights on the HHR junction and also the fact that since these were resolved, traffic has been flowing much better. They ask:

You suggest that your earlier submission dated 9 October was based on personal accounts of congestion and confusion. Can I therefore ask you to confirm if this submission
remains an official representation from the LFB and that the objection to the experimental closures still stands.
Click to expand...

And the response is:

Sorry for late reply, but in response to your email, yes this does remain the official response from the LFB and our objection still stands
Click to expand...

So that's it - the objection from the LFB was that they had personal reports of congestion on CHL from early in the scheme, but no specific data on the actual impacts on response times, they stated that the time period was too short to come to useful conclusions, and no comment on the fact that the congestion had eased since the date of their initial comments.

Is anyone going to try and argue that that's anything other than a very weak and poorly substantiated objection? Looks to me like Lambeth could very easily have decided as much, and continued the scheme, if they had really wanted. Instead they used this as their get-out clause; their way of justifying copping out when I think we can all see that the reason for their decision was what they percieved to be public pressure.
 
For the record here are the actual responses from the other emergency services - not what certain people were trying to pass as fact on facebook etc with claims that lives were being put at serious risk, etc etc.

Here's what the ambulance service said -

The data is now back from our Management Information department and whilst there isn’t conclusive evidence that journey times on emergency calls in the area are significantly extended, there are indications that some journeys are being extended. However whilst we would still like to maintain our position that it is likely that journey times have been detrimentally impacted upon by the scheme, we would not be comfortable using such a small dataset (an eight week period which appears to show times increasing in the range of 1 to 2 minutes on average), to formally object to the scheme.

Confirmation that road closures will not be maintained with physical barriers if the scheme were to be approved also provides some reassurance regarding access and running times.
Click to expand...

Here's what the police said (with my bold)

Thank you for the meeting on Tuesday 3rd November and appraising us with the current position regarding this experimental scheme.
Firstly we support any scheme which reduces or has a likelihood to reduce casualties.
We also have to take into consideration traffic flows, congestion and the effects of displaced traffic. There is also the compounded traffic problems created by the local signal modernisation programme.

As this review is being conducted within such a short time following implementation, there has not been an opportunity to evaluate any impacts being positive or negative. I further believe we are still going through the transitional period.
The short review time has had the added effect of your surveys relating to speed and class not being available.

As a consequence I am unable to offer a positive or negative comment on the this scheme, should the scheme be continued and your data made available, I would be in better position to comment.
I must reiterate that 'we at present remain neutral with opinion and support' resulting from the limited data and short time period since introduction, thereby preventing any measurable analysis.
Click to expand...
 
teuchter said:
For the record here are the actual responses from the other emergency services - not what certain people were trying to pass as fact on facebook etc with claims that lives were being put at serious risk, etc etc.

Here's what the ambulance service said -
Here's what the police said (with my bold)
Click to expand...

What this looks like to me is anecdata, for the record the actual responses from the emergency services are documented and officially recognised - not what certain people here trying to pass as anecdata... The report from the ambulance service clearly states that lives were being put at serious risk, etc etc. Police, Fire, Ambulance, Doctors... All made submissions, as you probably also did.

This all looks like more spin teuchter...

gmod-spin-788979.gif
 
Last edited:
critical1 said:
What this looks like to me is anecdata, for the record the actual responses from the emergency services are documented and officially recognised - not what certain people here trying to pass as anecdata... The report from the ambulance service clearly states that lives were being put at serious risk, etc etc. Police, Fire, Ambulance, Doctors... All made submissions, as you probably also did.

This all looks like more spin teuchter...
Click to expand...

What I posted were the official representations of the emergency services, all published as appedices to the Lambeth report here.

Stop lying, please. The ambulance service does not clearly state that lives were being put at serious risk. It states what I have posted above. Anyone can follow the link to check this.
 
I'm going to risk being called reasonable again .. think Teuchter is right when he says
teuchter said:
Looks to me like Lambeth could very easily have decided as much, and continued the scheme, if they had really wanted. Instead they used this as their get-out clause; their way of justifying copping out when I think we can all see that the reason for their decision was what they perceived to be public pressure.
Click to expand...
As at every step of this story though, I don't see the sense in blaming 'the car lobby', or the ambulance people, or me, or the broken traffic lights for its many failures - I can only see a long catalogue of screwups at the town hall.
 
Once one of the emergency services raised an official objection, the council would have exposed themselves to legal action if they had overridden it and subsequently someone died or was seriously injured owing to emergency service response being delayed.
 
teuchter said:
What I posted were the official representations of the emergency services, all published as appedices to the Lambeth report here.

Stop lying, please. The ambulance service does not clearly state that lives were being put at serious risk. It states what I have posted above. Anyone can follow the link to check this.
Click to expand...
Does not clearly state, only says clearly... I think it's clearly a case of semantics.

(Maybe only moderate risk!!!, but that's ok according to you teuchter)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

teuchter
New development at Hardess St / Wellfit St, Loughborough Junction: 2024 planning application
2 3 4 5
Replies
126
Views
5K
teuchter
teuchter
Rushy
Petition to make busy Effra Road / Brixton Water Lane junction safer for pedestrians
Replies
18
Views
1K
Zapp Brannigan
Zapp Brannigan
editor
Cyclist killed in Brixton
2
Replies
32
Views
1K
T & P
T & P
Rushy
Action on ASB! Public meeting on 30 November at Lambeth Town Hall
Replies
2
Views
432
Rushy
Rushy
I
Lambeth council magnolia paint
Replies
9
Views
657
WouldBe
WouldBe
Back
Top Bottom