Loughborough Junction public space improvements - consultation begins
- Thread starter Leo Chesterton
- Start date
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
We need a report of the proceedings. Maybe someone will be able to post up?
Unfortunately I have already been booked into a lecture at the Royal College of Physicians on "The Divided Brain" - which some posters might think more pertinent to my situation!
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
In the case I'm quoting they had to do pre committee consultation - because planning permission was required and residents had to be consulted (by law I think).
But to repeat once more the point I am trying to get at - aside from the prejudices causing the initial opposition, once Mosaic Clubhouse was up and running nobody noticed it was there AFAIK.
In the case of the Loughborough Road Closure there are always going to be people who will be inconvenienced by closure of a 200 year old right of way.
The people seeking to do the Loughborough Road closure are quoting all sorts of high minded moral principles - reduction of pollution, reduction of accidents, forcing people to use public transport - or walk, or cycle.
Some of these things are highly contentious - are people really going to walk or cycle because they can't drive down Loughborough Road?
Will pollution be reduced in aggregate - or just deflected from Loughborough Road to Coldharbour Lane? How will we know?
Likewise if the number of accidents outside Loughborough Farm goes down to zero - what was it before? How do we know there won't be corresponding accidents in Lilford Road or other roads which never wanted to be connected with this scheme?
To me it looks like what is ultimately in the minds of the advocates is the expansion of Wyck Gardens across to Loughborough Farm - eliminating the 200 year old route now named Loughborough Road. This is the Garden Bridge mentality. If they really wanted to succeed in this they should have got the appropriate legal authority to do it and sent in the JCBs to rip up the road. In six months people might have got used to it. But this drip drip gradual whittling away of road users rights will just continue to cause aggro.
Wait till the fines come in.
bimble
floofy
I'm just going to put this link here and refrain from comment at the moment
Award Winner: Lambeth - Best community engagement/ consultation
Award Winner: Lambeth - Best community engagement/ consultation
bimble
floofy
This is fascinating:
Lambeth, and the Loughborough Junction Plan, written up by a think tank as a shining example of how to do local consultation.
http://www.lgiu.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/LGiU-Lambeth-residents-v2-Hi-res.pdf
Lambeth, and the Loughborough Junction Plan, written up by a think tank as a shining example of how to do local consultation.
http://www.lgiu.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/LGiU-Lambeth-residents-v2-Hi-res.pdf
I also walk, use public transport and cycle but I take my kids to school in the car because that is the only way I can get to work on time...maybe when you have kids you'll appreciate the extra things you have to do before you can sit on that bus to work...and i worked for 25 years before having kids so I know exactly both side of the coin. And if you say it's your choice to have kids I will say to you that you need the kids to pay for your pension and all the other things taxes buy...
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
I can't see much that is contentious about these ideas, or why they should be described as high-minded moral principles.
The impact of cars is very real, yet we will carry on driving for as long as it remains the easy option.
One day however city driving might seem as absurd as smoking in pubs.
(I suspect any fines will be thrown out because of the poor signage).
Ha ha hilarious!
"Our vision is one of citizens, businesses and council
staff working together on an equal footing, allowing citizens more
direct control and influence over the design and delivery of services
that make a difference in their lives and communities"
Sounds great doesn't it - shame Lambeth doesn't believe in democracy! ie refusing the petition of 750 signatures against the road closures submitted by LETRA.
And here's another thing...the Stockwell Partnership have been appointed as an independent monitor for residents views....guess who used to work at the Stockwell Partnership...George Wright! How impartial and independent is that going to be then!
Ha ha did you go - I did! ...no stalls, no sound stage...nothing for kids...but i did find one person at the 'farm' digging and the Platform cafe was open - the lady there said there would be a beer bar open later...and that was it!! ....that was why they closed the road and diverted the bus...outrageous!
My kids don't drink beer so we went home! Great 'community day' LJAG!
To the "true believers", no reason will ever suffice. They will say, "You should just get up earlier."
What really annoys me is the way these people arrogate to themselves the right to dictate how everyone else should live their lives. Whatever happened to live and let live?
teuchter
je suis teuchter
You are talking about road users' "rights". But what you are really talking about is defending the priveleges of a minority. A right of way doesn't mean a right to drive motor vehicles. 200 years ago there were no motor vehicles. Gradually pedestrians' ability to move freely around the city has been eroded by more and more privelege being given to motorists. Now, as a pedestrian you are confined to the margins of what was orginally your right of way and are at risk of getting killed if you want to pass from one side of it to the other.
80% of households in Lambeth do not own a car. In the immediate locality of LJ it's even less. Virtually all fatal accidents on London's roads involve a motor vehicle but there are more than three times as many pedestrians killed as car drivers.
Why defend the privelege of a few, a privelege that has a massively disproportionate impact on the majority?
And these measures aren't highly contentious. There are many places where traffic calming, as a city wide policy, (and this scheme needs to be viewed in that context) has been successful. The idea that a city can't thrive without car drivers being free to roam wher they like is bollocks.
Have you been to Groningen?
I like this video because it's an American seeing a car-free city for the first time. He's obviously pro the general idea but even so it's clear that he's not quite been able to concieve of the possibility of it being a reality. This is what we seem to have got stuck in here too. People seem terrified of restricting car access. But look, nothing terrible happens! You just get a city that's hugely more enjoyable for everyone to live in. It's not pie-in-the-sky, it works fine - you just have to do it.
Last edited:
teuchter
je suis teuchter
So what about all those other people who don't own a car? How do they get to work on time?
teuchter
je suis teuchter
And as for the idea that making things less convenient for drivers encourages modal shift - no it is not highly contentious.
It has been well known for years, even decades, that increasing road capacity does not relieve congestion. Whatever additional capacity you provide simply fills up. It stands to reason that if you reduce capacity you reduce the number of motor vehicles in the system. So, the drivers of those vehicles who no longer fit on the roads have to use other modes of transport. If you want to also reduce congestion you have to provide disincentives like congestion charging schemes.
These are the only really effective ways you can get people out of their cars. Give them less road capacity, and/or make them pay more for it.
The Only Hope for Reducing Traffic
It has been well known for years, even decades, that increasing road capacity does not relieve congestion. Whatever additional capacity you provide simply fills up. It stands to reason that if you reduce capacity you reduce the number of motor vehicles in the system. So, the drivers of those vehicles who no longer fit on the roads have to use other modes of transport. If you want to also reduce congestion you have to provide disincentives like congestion charging schemes.
These are the only really effective ways you can get people out of their cars. Give them less road capacity, and/or make them pay more for it.
The Only Hope for Reducing Traffic
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
While this trial does look hopeless, isn't the dictating generally done by drivers?
The 20-30pc of residents who boss public thoroughfares, secure in vehicles pumping out deadly gas.
More a case of live and let die!
Ol Nick
beer in Brixton
No. SLAM has had several problems of anti-social behavior and occasional crime such as assaults and common assaults that have been dealt with by the community police. It ebbs and flows, as you might expect, but it doesn't get in the news.
Rushy
basically a scrotum
Fair enough. I was aware of one little flurry of anti-social activity couple of years ago although never witnessed anything myself. I was quite anti the idea of it being there at the time but feel it has largely been discreet.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
I am not arguing for the right to pollute - merely pointing out that the Loughborough Road pollution will most likely be diverted somewhere else - possibly even somewhere more harmful.
As for car ownership & use - we are entering a bizarre situation where new residents are prohibited from owning/parking cars (no car developments) whereas occupants of social housing built when car ownership was the norm are outraged at having their rights curtailed.
I am just trying to be libertarian about the issue. Maybe rebalancing the costs of public vs private transport might help like Fares Fare did in 1982.
To those making casual comments about well-to-do LJAG oppressing the embattled working class: I think it's a wrong-headed position that creates a false division. If we must use a 'class war' gloss on this, you could equally see LJAG as battling against the oppression of non-local cars unfairly exploiting the roads and neighbourhoods north of CHL. Call LJAG misguided or condescending or inept, but I think trying to portray them as empire-builders is inaccurate.
The truth is (of course) more nuanced. But if you feel the white middle classes are over-represented (I'm sure they are), you could always try joining to help steer them in the right direction (even if that didn't work out for CH1...)
And to be clear I have nothing to do with LJAG. I'm undecided on the road closures. But I'd like to think LJ is a sufficiently open-minded place that we're prepared to try an experiment and see if it works before rushing to judgment/sabotage.
The truth is (of course) more nuanced. But if you feel the white middle classes are over-represented (I'm sure they are), you could always try joining to help steer them in the right direction (even if that didn't work out for CH1...)
And to be clear I have nothing to do with LJAG. I'm undecided on the road closures. But I'd like to think LJ is a sufficiently open-minded place that we're prepared to try an experiment and see if it works before rushing to judgment/sabotage.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
I went to one or two NEP meetings for Coldharbour. One of them had only 6 people present. Another one which had lots of presentation material required had more council officers than people in the audience.
This sort of thing is very hit and miss. Until something happens people cant be bothered/are too busy/doing shifts etc and don't engage.
When they start on a controversial hare brained scheme everyone gets the pip - but probably still wouldn't engage!
The Coldharbour NEP I seem to recall asking for something to make the street safer where the shops are opposite the Barrier Block.
Don't think anything happened there - but maybe the Zebra Crossing near Shakespeare Road was part of it? Also I think they panted some street trees and widened the pavement in Gresham Road opposite and next to the Fire Station (road safety?).
Other than that I don't know what they did.
Last edited:
editor
hiraethified
Trying to persuade people driving their precious fucking cars is on hell of a tricky problem to solve, not helped by a powerful pro-car lobby, the "it's my right to drive wherever I want" gang, and this bizarre situation which sees increased car sales being lauded on the main TV news as a reason to throw our hats in the air in celebration.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
I was wondering why all the adverts at the Ritzy seem to be for cars! 20 minutes of it generally. Very tempting to arrive late to avoid the incredibly loud car porn.
editor
hiraethified
Open a really good community cafe/pub space to give the place a focus. Put back the removed Loughborough Junction platforms (OK, we're talking tens of millions here). Put the old small industries back so it can remain a working/living area rather then turn it into a dormitory town for the well heeled. Oh, and put back the Loughborough House frontage, please.Out of curiosity (and this is aimed at anyone with an opinionif you had access to a few tens of thousands of pounds of funding to spend on making LJ a nicer place to be, how would you spend it?
*I'm not being entirely serious with all of these ideas here
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
So what is wrong with closing Hinton Road completely. To stop through traffic easily driving from Herne Hill direction to Camberwell Road & vv via Loughborough Road?
All this extra ludicrous signage threatening non-existent cameras in Gordon Grove and the travails of people in Calais Gate, Denmark Road Lilford Road miles from the precious site of Loughborough Road.
You really are committed to using a sledgehammer to crack a nut - because the objective is not to reduce traffic, but to colonise the land immediately north of the railway which has been a right of way for 200+ years.
No I have not been to Groningen. I spent a pleasant interlude in Apeldoorn back in 1976 or thereabouts where my host was able to my surprise to hire me a bike for 20 mile round trip to a Royal Palace somewhere near Arnhem. Other than that I have no personal contact with cycling in the Netherlands (other than people flashing past me in Amsterdam back in the 1980s so to speak).
teuchter
je suis teuchter
I would have no objection to closing the end of Hinton Rd, if it seems that would be effective in reducing the amount of cut-through traffic. But the end of Hinton Rd does not lend itself to use as a public space in the way that the end bit of Loughborough Rd does. That is, as I understand it, a large part of the reasoning behind the scheme, not only to reduce cut through traffic but to provide LJ with a decent bit of urban public space.
The end of Hinton Rd is overshadowed most of the day, is narrower and has no adjacent green space. I'd still prefer that to nothing though.
I have been wondering if it would make sense to close the end of Herne Hill Rd instead (and make exit from Hinton Rd left/right turn only). It is wider, sunnier and also opposite the railway station. Making it into a pedestrian space could potentially work in conjunction with the development of the Higgs triangle too (and for the record, I argued strongly against the industrial employment space there being given up for housing - my agenda is not to fill LJ with yuppie flats but to keep it as somewhere with a diversity of employment but better public space - you don't have to choose between the two).
Somehow I suspect that if proposals had originally been made to pedestrianise the end of HHR instead of Loughborough Road, it would have been criticised on the basis of spending improvement money on the leafy side of LJ instead of the other side.
If it seems that people really don't want pedestrianisation on LR and/or that scheme is abandoned, I would certainly argue in favour of pedestrianisation schemes on the S side of CHL instead.
That's what you are trying to portray the intention as, but I don't think it's fair. I think it's a kind of smear strategy.
And as I already explained, 200 years ago it was a right of way for pedestrians. Closing it to traffic does not take a right of way away. It returns it to the pedestrians.
By the way, I think you imply that this "colonsiation" attempt is in conjunction with the Farm project. I am not especially in favour of the farm. I think there could definitely be an argument for a more appropriate use of that space. And there are ways that could happen in conjunction with the pedestrianisation of the end of LR - which I would suggest should remain as a hard surface, and become a shared space with buses, pedestrians and cyclists. There is no need to green it with the parkland immediately adjacent. And the farm site could be redeveloped with uses that would bring more day-round activity to that space.
It has lots of potential to work well, but I suspect it'll never happen because people are determined to trash it without even waiting to see what the real effects are.
bimble
floofy
Out of curiosity (and this is aimed at anyone with an opinion
If I had that amount my first idea would be to fix up and staff the derelict adventure playground on Gordon Grove - it's lovely in there, but it's always always closed.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
"Captain you are not logical" (as Mr Spock used to say).
My alternative suggestion is no good because it provides no public space, you say.
You then say my comments about sequestering a road and turning it into a public space are a smear tactic.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
No, I said neither of those things.
I said your altrnative suggestion would provide a less attractive public space.
And your comments weren't expressed as "turning it into a public space". Your wording was "to colonise the land immediately north of the railway which has been a right of way for 200+ years". My objection is to the implications of the word "colonisation", and the implication that restricting motor access amounted to removing a public right of way.
Similar threads
