Loughborough Junction public space improvements - consultation begins
- Thread starter Leo Chesterton
- Start date
teuchter
je suis teuchter
I don't think it's a surprise.
Of course in some cases people will get upset, and in some with good reason.
It's a matter of trying to get things in perspective though, and make sure you're actually getting a good picture of the full range of opinion.
It may well be that the consultation failed to do this. But I think there's now a high likelihood of the whole thing collapsing as a result of not taking proper steps to gather in the full range of opinion post-closures.
And I'm rather sceptical that many people's lives have really been changed "dramatically" by this.
I remember that was her line at the first consultation meeting last October -- somewhat disingenuous when LJAG played such a big part in the scheme behind it all -- for the new "public space which isn't a public space" and which nobody talks about anymore.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
That's not how a lot of people see it though.
LadyV
Well-Known Member
So I also went along, nice to meet Gramsci and Beasley whilst there, hello!
I started out by trying to make notes on my phone but it got too much. But here's what I can got down/remember.
The meeting as described by others was very unruly, man from the council traffic dept, Ian, was predictably jeered as he spoke, people from Stockwell Partnership did at least get most of their info out before they too got shouted down.
What I did get was that Stockwell Partnership will start their consultation next week until end of month, it's going to be, by their own admission, a rush job, will take form of online survey, some people out with clipboards in the area and some random door knocking. They will then turn around a report to Lambeth by mid November, I think, that's when it got quite shouty so might have mis-heard.
It was suggested that the closures be taken away while the Stockwell Partnership surveys are carried out, obviously also suggested that they were taken away full stop and what was the point of another consultation, 3000 people have signed the stop the closures petition, surely that was enough etc etc. People were concerned that by the time the report goes before the council properly it'll be new year.
There were repeated calls for Jennifer Braithwaite to resign and then a more sensible call for her to be at a future meeting to answer to her decision. Can not see that happening personally, well not without security.
As mentioned by others there was anecdata from some residents on St James Crescent and from Angell Town about big lorries and trucks getting stuck when trying to find way through, drivers cutting through what essentially car parks, lots of complaints about Coldharbour Lane congestion and pollution. Man from council said CHL congestion was caused by dodgy traffic lights at Herne Hill road junction, was now sorted but they were monitoring it. Something was also said about the monitoring of air quality on CHL, which I think was that they're not monitoring it but I'm not sure, it got quite shouty at that point again.
Anthea Massey did have the guts to stand up and try to justify LJag's position on the closures, couldn't hear all of what she said unfortunately, she lost most of the room by the use of the phrase "bold and progressive" plan! But I did hear her say that they would hold Lambeth to account for the experiment and that they had written and asked questions etc.
The G word, gentrification, was also mentioned but not until a good while into the meeting, with shouts of social cleansing from the crowd, a lady from Vassall and Coldharbour Forum (VCF) answered partially to that saying that VCF want to consult people on that aspect of things, didn't quite get how, she wasn't a good speaker, then or when she gave a presentation later.
Lembit Opik was indeed there, quite open that there as motor cyclist. Doesn't live in the immediate area, I asked him, didn't quite catch the answer, think he said Brixton, Herne Hill borders but travels through the area daily. Didn't really add anything new to the table tbh but very eloquently questioned democracy in Lambeth when there can so much opposition to something but no action by the council.
There was also another man there who started talking about judicial reviews of the process that brought the closures in, might just have been a lot of hot air but he certainly got people's attention. He was also the first person I heard there to blame LJag, he laid it firmly at their door which I personally thought a little unfair, nobody else really followed up with it so I guess most people blame the council, I don't know.
Towards the end of the section about the closures, there were some questions to the council about what has happened to the complaints that have already been made, how many are there and will they be included in the review by Stockwell Partnership? There was also a question about the notification letter that came through to locals about the closure, apparently the letter said that at any point if there were issues or lots of opposition the experiment could be halted, however the man from the council and the two councillors said that wasn't the case as there was a process that had to be gone through. This led to calls that the process was illegal etc, judicial review brought up again.
I swore to myself before hand that I wouldn't speak but when the council man started spouting about 68% of locals wanted this I saw red and did speak to remind him that that just 181 local people wanted it not 68%! He had no answer to that, I also asked if the new review would be expected to get more responses, didn't hear if there was answer to that, too loud.
I also asked later how we went from the original master plan ideas to a road closure and it seems that as I thought, it was a throwaway remark in a previous meeting that was then taken away and run with, with everyone's favourite person Mr Wright as the likely suspect!
There's probably a lot more I could write but that's all I can remember for now, if I think of anything else I'll add it in the morning.
I started out by trying to make notes on my phone but it got too much. But here's what I can got down/remember.
The meeting as described by others was very unruly, man from the council traffic dept, Ian, was predictably jeered as he spoke, people from Stockwell Partnership did at least get most of their info out before they too got shouted down.
What I did get was that Stockwell Partnership will start their consultation next week until end of month, it's going to be, by their own admission, a rush job, will take form of online survey, some people out with clipboards in the area and some random door knocking. They will then turn around a report to Lambeth by mid November, I think, that's when it got quite shouty so might have mis-heard.
It was suggested that the closures be taken away while the Stockwell Partnership surveys are carried out, obviously also suggested that they were taken away full stop and what was the point of another consultation, 3000 people have signed the stop the closures petition, surely that was enough etc etc. People were concerned that by the time the report goes before the council properly it'll be new year.
There were repeated calls for Jennifer Braithwaite to resign and then a more sensible call for her to be at a future meeting to answer to her decision. Can not see that happening personally, well not without security.
As mentioned by others there was anecdata from some residents on St James Crescent and from Angell Town about big lorries and trucks getting stuck when trying to find way through, drivers cutting through what essentially car parks, lots of complaints about Coldharbour Lane congestion and pollution. Man from council said CHL congestion was caused by dodgy traffic lights at Herne Hill road junction, was now sorted but they were monitoring it. Something was also said about the monitoring of air quality on CHL, which I think was that they're not monitoring it but I'm not sure, it got quite shouty at that point again.
Anthea Massey did have the guts to stand up and try to justify LJag's position on the closures, couldn't hear all of what she said unfortunately, she lost most of the room by the use of the phrase "bold and progressive" plan! But I did hear her say that they would hold Lambeth to account for the experiment and that they had written and asked questions etc.
The G word, gentrification, was also mentioned but not until a good while into the meeting, with shouts of social cleansing from the crowd, a lady from Vassall and Coldharbour Forum (VCF) answered partially to that saying that VCF want to consult people on that aspect of things, didn't quite get how, she wasn't a good speaker, then or when she gave a presentation later.
Lembit Opik was indeed there, quite open that there as motor cyclist. Doesn't live in the immediate area, I asked him, didn't quite catch the answer, think he said Brixton, Herne Hill borders but travels through the area daily. Didn't really add anything new to the table tbh but very eloquently questioned democracy in Lambeth when there can so much opposition to something but no action by the council.
There was also another man there who started talking about judicial reviews of the process that brought the closures in, might just have been a lot of hot air but he certainly got people's attention. He was also the first person I heard there to blame LJag, he laid it firmly at their door which I personally thought a little unfair, nobody else really followed up with it so I guess most people blame the council, I don't know.
Towards the end of the section about the closures, there were some questions to the council about what has happened to the complaints that have already been made, how many are there and will they be included in the review by Stockwell Partnership? There was also a question about the notification letter that came through to locals about the closure, apparently the letter said that at any point if there were issues or lots of opposition the experiment could be halted, however the man from the council and the two councillors said that wasn't the case as there was a process that had to be gone through. This led to calls that the process was illegal etc, judicial review brought up again.
I swore to myself before hand that I wouldn't speak but when the council man started spouting about 68% of locals wanted this I saw red and did speak to remind him that that just 181 local people wanted it not 68%! He had no answer to that, I also asked if the new review would be expected to get more responses, didn't hear if there was answer to that, too loud.
I also asked later how we went from the original master plan ideas to a road closure and it seems that as I thought, it was a throwaway remark in a previous meeting that was then taken away and run with, with everyone's favourite person Mr Wright as the likely suspect!
There's probably a lot more I could write but that's all I can remember for now, if I think of anything else I'll add it in the morning.
Last edited:
LadyV
Well-Known Member
I thought she was pretty brave too, it can't have been easy to have sat there and then spoken up in favour of something that was so unpopular.
Towards the back, her living in the area was called into question, lots of chatter about her not living in the area for that long and what did she know etc, also a certain amount of suspicion and animosity towards her as not from an estate
Ok Bimble it was your post re removing motor traffic from across London. You were right about my arrogant remark at the last LJAG meeting re emergency services.That said as Emergency Services are a statutory consultee my understanding is that the Highway Authority, in this instance Lambeth, have to take note of them.
A total delight following this thread. Particular thanks for the records of last night's meeting.
We London Cycling Campaign transport planning and infrastructure headbangers, talk about cells. That is where you can walk and cycle and take buses through an area, so strictly speaking roads aren't closed, and drive in and out, but through motor traffic is filtered out. It is what, I understand, the Dutch do.
The cell I have gone on about at LJAG meetings and elsewhere for years, is bounded by the TLRN (Transport for London Road Network) in this area, Denmark Hill, Herne Hill, Dulwich Rd, Effra Rd, Brixton Rd, Camberwell New Rd. Yes filtering out through motor traffic from CHL, not buses. I think people here get motor traffic evaporation via modal shift, and get the tiny number of have to motor vehicle journeys, as opposed to the want to ones. A plug for Wheels for Wellbeing on the Brixton Rd, whose CEO is a wheelchair using cyclist.
Some years ago Lambeth consulted on types of reducing speed measures in the LJ area South of CHL. Filtering wasn't in the mix. The long Bromley to centre of town rat run has a route via Poplar Walk onto Hinton, and speeds of over 50 mph have been recorded. People on this thread have got the potential filters apart from the one on Lyham Rd between the two Poplars. The group of us campaigning for filtering out through motor traffic from the LJ area South of CHL didn't quite get the votes 48% from memory. For people interested in hyper local politics, that was supported by Herne Hill Forum. From my experience of the campaign against taking part of Brockwell Park when Railton Rd was closed at Herne Hill Junction, Herne Hill Forum is a different animal from the Herne Hill Society.
Bimble I can't remember which meeting, it was at Blue Star House, on a scheme for the crossroads, that the idea for filtering out through motor traffic from Loughborough Rd first hardened. I do remember I was late and I do remember someone saying to me I thought you would be pleased and me saying I was in shock, probably because, unconsciously, I knew what was coming in terms of opposition.
After the last LJAG meeting I followed the rat runs noted, that from your notes, Lady V, were raised again last night, and emailed Lambeth. The estate one could be dealt with, it would need the Ok of LEMB as it is an estate rd, similarly the one through Angell Town could be dealt with. The Angell Town rat run would need a new Traffic Order which could add more trial time.
Historically there are a number of local filters and other measures that have been retrospectively installed, to prevent East West through motor traffic in the LJ area and borders , North of CHL. On Angell Rd, the junction of Peckford Place and Brixton Rd and the no entry in the area, with a recent except cycling installed. (She bows). Makes a great EW CHL avoiding route for those of us who use sustainable modes.
Similarly, historically, Angell Town seems to have been redeveloped on Secure by Design principles removing through motor traffic. It is my NS alternative to Loughborough Rd, though not at present. ....
Ok back to my emails to and fro with Rosendale Rd area residents, following a loud, apparently 300 strong, meeting.
Clare
A total delight following this thread. Particular thanks for the records of last night's meeting.
We London Cycling Campaign transport planning and infrastructure headbangers, talk about cells. That is where you can walk and cycle and take buses through an area, so strictly speaking roads aren't closed, and drive in and out, but through motor traffic is filtered out. It is what, I understand, the Dutch do.
The cell I have gone on about at LJAG meetings and elsewhere for years, is bounded by the TLRN (Transport for London Road Network) in this area, Denmark Hill, Herne Hill, Dulwich Rd, Effra Rd, Brixton Rd, Camberwell New Rd. Yes filtering out through motor traffic from CHL, not buses. I think people here get motor traffic evaporation via modal shift, and get the tiny number of have to motor vehicle journeys, as opposed to the want to ones. A plug for Wheels for Wellbeing on the Brixton Rd, whose CEO is a wheelchair using cyclist.
Some years ago Lambeth consulted on types of reducing speed measures in the LJ area South of CHL. Filtering wasn't in the mix. The long Bromley to centre of town rat run has a route via Poplar Walk onto Hinton, and speeds of over 50 mph have been recorded. People on this thread have got the potential filters apart from the one on Lyham Rd between the two Poplars. The group of us campaigning for filtering out through motor traffic from the LJ area South of CHL didn't quite get the votes 48% from memory. For people interested in hyper local politics, that was supported by Herne Hill Forum. From my experience of the campaign against taking part of Brockwell Park when Railton Rd was closed at Herne Hill Junction, Herne Hill Forum is a different animal from the Herne Hill Society.
Bimble I can't remember which meeting, it was at Blue Star House, on a scheme for the crossroads, that the idea for filtering out through motor traffic from Loughborough Rd first hardened. I do remember I was late and I do remember someone saying to me I thought you would be pleased and me saying I was in shock, probably because, unconsciously, I knew what was coming in terms of opposition.
After the last LJAG meeting I followed the rat runs noted, that from your notes, Lady V, were raised again last night, and emailed Lambeth. The estate one could be dealt with, it would need the Ok of LEMB as it is an estate rd, similarly the one through Angell Town could be dealt with. The Angell Town rat run would need a new Traffic Order which could add more trial time.
Historically there are a number of local filters and other measures that have been retrospectively installed, to prevent East West through motor traffic in the LJ area and borders , North of CHL. On Angell Rd, the junction of Peckford Place and Brixton Rd and the no entry in the area, with a recent except cycling installed. (She bows). Makes a great EW CHL avoiding route for those of us who use sustainable modes.
Similarly, historically, Angell Town seems to have been redeveloped on Secure by Design principles removing through motor traffic. It is my NS alternative to Loughborough Rd, though not at present. ....
Ok back to my emails to and fro with Rosendale Rd area residents, following a loud, apparently 300 strong, meeting.
Clare
Ok Bimble it was your post re removing motor traffic from across London. You were right about my arrogant remark at the last LJAG meeting re emergency services.That said as Emergency Services are a statutory consultee my understanding is that the Highway Authority, in this instance Lambeth, have to take note of them.
A total delight following this thread. Particular thanks for the records of last night's meeting.
We London Cycling Campaign transport planning and infrastructure headbangers, talk about cells. That is where you can walk and cycle and take buses through an area, so strictly speaking roads aren't closed, and drive in and out, but through motor traffic is filtered out. It is what, I understand, the Dutch do.
The cell I have gone on about at LJAG meetings and elsewhere for years, is bounded by the TLRN (Transport for London Road Network) in this area, Denmark Hill, Herne Hill, Dulwich Rd, Effra Rd, Brixton Rd, Camberwell New Rd. Yes filtering out through motor traffic from CHL, not buses. I think people here get motor traffic evaporation via modal shift, and get the tiny number of have to motor vehicle journeys, as opposed to the want to ones. A plug for Wheels for Wellbeing on the Brixton Rd, whose CEO is a wheelchair using cyclist.
Some years ago Lambeth consulted on types of reducing speed measures in the LJ area South of CHL. Filtering wasn't in the mix. The long Bromley to centre of town rat run has a route via Poplar Walk onto Hinton, and speeds of over 50 mph have been recorded. People on this thread have got the potential filters apart from the one on Lyham Rd between the two Poplars. The group of us campaigning for filtering out through motor traffic from the LJ area South of CHL didn't quite get the votes 48% from memory. For people interested in hyper local politics, that was supported by Herne Hill Forum. From my experience of the campaign against taking part of Brockwell Park when Railton Rd was closed at Herne Hill Junction, Herne Hill Forum is a different animal from the Herne Hill Society.
Bimble I can't remember which meeting, it was at Blue Star House, on a scheme for the crossroads, that the idea for filtering out through motor traffic from Loughborough Rd first hardened. I do remember I was late and I do remember someone saying to me I thought you would be pleased and me saying I was in shock, probably because, unconsciously, I knew what was coming in terms of opposition.
After the last LJAG meeting I followed the rat runs noted, that from your notes, Lady V, were raised again last night, and emailed Lambeth. The estate one could be dealt with, it would need the Ok of LEMB as it is an estate rd, similarly the one through Angell Town could be dealt with. The Angell Town rat run would need a new Traffic Order which could add more trial time.
Historically there are a number of local filters and other measures that have been retrospectively installed, to prevent East West through motor traffic in the LJ area and borders , North of CHL. On Angell Rd, the junction of Peckford Place and Brixton Rd and the no entry in the area, with a recent except cycling installed. (She bows). Makes a great EW CHL avoiding route for those of us who use sustainable modes.
Similarly, historically, Angell Town seems to have been redeveloped on Secure by Design principles removing through motor traffic. It is my NS alternative to Loughborough Rd, though not at present. ....
Ok back to my emails to and fro with Rosendale Rd area residents, following a loud, apparently 300 strong, meeting.
Clare
A total delight following this thread. Particular thanks for the records of last night's meeting.
We London Cycling Campaign transport planning and infrastructure headbangers, talk about cells. That is where you can walk and cycle and take buses through an area, so strictly speaking roads aren't closed, and drive in and out, but through motor traffic is filtered out. It is what, I understand, the Dutch do.
The cell I have gone on about at LJAG meetings and elsewhere for years, is bounded by the TLRN (Transport for London Road Network) in this area, Denmark Hill, Herne Hill, Dulwich Rd, Effra Rd, Brixton Rd, Camberwell New Rd. Yes filtering out through motor traffic from CHL, not buses. I think people here get motor traffic evaporation via modal shift, and get the tiny number of have to motor vehicle journeys, as opposed to the want to ones. A plug for Wheels for Wellbeing on the Brixton Rd, whose CEO is a wheelchair using cyclist.
Some years ago Lambeth consulted on types of reducing speed measures in the LJ area South of CHL. Filtering wasn't in the mix. The long Bromley to centre of town rat run has a route via Poplar Walk onto Hinton, and speeds of over 50 mph have been recorded. People on this thread have got the potential filters apart from the one on Lyham Rd between the two Poplars. The group of us campaigning for filtering out through motor traffic from the LJ area South of CHL didn't quite get the votes 48% from memory. For people interested in hyper local politics, that was supported by Herne Hill Forum. From my experience of the campaign against taking part of Brockwell Park when Railton Rd was closed at Herne Hill Junction, Herne Hill Forum is a different animal from the Herne Hill Society.
Bimble I can't remember which meeting, it was at Blue Star House, on a scheme for the crossroads, that the idea for filtering out through motor traffic from Loughborough Rd first hardened. I do remember I was late and I do remember someone saying to me I thought you would be pleased and me saying I was in shock, probably because, unconsciously, I knew what was coming in terms of opposition.
After the last LJAG meeting I followed the rat runs noted, that from your notes, Lady V, were raised again last night, and emailed Lambeth. The estate one could be dealt with, it would need the Ok of LEMB as it is an estate rd, similarly the one through Angell Town could be dealt with. The Angell Town rat run would need a new Traffic Order which could add more trial time.
Historically there are a number of local filters and other measures that have been retrospectively installed, to prevent East West through motor traffic in the LJ area and borders , North of CHL. On Angell Rd, the junction of Peckford Place and Brixton Rd and the no entry in the area, with a recent except cycling installed. (She bows). Makes a great EW CHL avoiding route for those of us who use sustainable modes.
Similarly, historically, Angell Town seems to have been redeveloped on Secure by Design principles removing through motor traffic. It is my NS alternative to Loughborough Rd, though not at present. ....
Ok back to my emails to and fro with Rosendale Rd area residents, following a loud, apparently 300 strong, meeting.
Clare
bimble
floofy
Hello Clare! It's great you're here.
I'm a bit confused: Could you maybe summarise whether or not you feel this particular experiment is a good one, as in whether it fits in with your ideas of a wider coherent traffic reduction policy and whether or not LJ has become better for cyclists since the experiment began?
I'm a bit confused: Could you maybe summarise whether or not you feel this particular experiment is a good one, as in whether it fits in with your ideas of a wider coherent traffic reduction policy and whether or not LJ has become better for cyclists since the experiment began?
xsunnysuex
Life is a horizontal fall.
Ok I uploaded the audio file overnight on dropbox. It starts out a bit muffled and noisy, but it does get better. Obviously some of the comments are a bit hard to hear cause of being at the back of the room. My laptop is old and naff. So it stops and starts at times. Hopefully your machines will be better. Having said all that I'm quite pleased with the way it's come out.
Here's the link.
Dropbox - Audio recording 2015-10-15 18-35-38.wav
Here's the link.
Dropbox - Audio recording 2015-10-15 18-35-38.wav
LadyV
Well-Known Member
Addendum to my notes from last night.
There were two guys that spoke from local businesses, one from a scrap yard, I missed the address and one from the convenience store by the Hero of Switzerland.
The guy from the scrap yard estimated a 50% drop in business because trucks could no longer get to the yard easily. He didn't know how long he would be able to stay open.
The other guy was harder to hear so I can't relay what he said in any great detail, maybe one of the others can? What I heard was that kids couldn't walk to the store anymore, didn't catch why, possibly because of additional traffic in Barrington Road etc.
Other item that was raised was about fines. Man from council said that for the first month, people just got warning letters, at great time, effort, expense etc to the council, you can imagine the response that got! Then went on to say that after that they were looking at real fines. Didn't comment about any appeals for poor signage etc but most of the crowd were saying things like not going to pay, the fines are illegal etc. Councillor Matt Parr did say that he wouldn't advise ignoring the fines, they might still stand etc
Other thing I remembered this morning was lots of calls for "direct action", no one elaborated on what that might entail as far as I can tell though. Wouldn't be surprised to see further vandalisation of barriers, signs etc
Be interesting to see how my memory stacks up to the recording!
There were two guys that spoke from local businesses, one from a scrap yard, I missed the address and one from the convenience store by the Hero of Switzerland.
The guy from the scrap yard estimated a 50% drop in business because trucks could no longer get to the yard easily. He didn't know how long he would be able to stay open.
The other guy was harder to hear so I can't relay what he said in any great detail, maybe one of the others can? What I heard was that kids couldn't walk to the store anymore, didn't catch why, possibly because of additional traffic in Barrington Road etc.
Other item that was raised was about fines. Man from council said that for the first month, people just got warning letters, at great time, effort, expense etc to the council, you can imagine the response that got! Then went on to say that after that they were looking at real fines. Didn't comment about any appeals for poor signage etc but most of the crowd were saying things like not going to pay, the fines are illegal etc. Councillor Matt Parr did say that he wouldn't advise ignoring the fines, they might still stand etc
Other thing I remembered this morning was lots of calls for "direct action", no one elaborated on what that might entail as far as I can tell though. Wouldn't be surprised to see further vandalisation of barriers, signs etc
Be interesting to see how my memory stacks up to the recording!
bimble
floofy
Yes, ok .. I put that because I think Cllr Braithwaite's response to him might just possibly be related to his letterhead."important sounding QC"/
Seeing as she has been unable to attend any of the meetings on the subject so far, and I'm not sure how many other objectors have heard back from her immediately with a promise of a swift & detailed reply to points raised.
Last edited:
critical1
All views expressed are definitely my own.
Well it was her meeting, so she had to sit there, or do you think she had an option to run away...
Cllrs get a lot of stick also, running away is not an option.
They all live here too.
bimble
floofy
got to admit if I was anthea I'd be feeling really uncomfortable right now would have to take a deep breath before just going down the road to the shop or whatever. I might even be getting valuations done on my house.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
"Her meeting"?
bimble
floofy
LJAG do convene these Local Planning Forum meetings. I believe is what was meant.
upthejunction
Well-Known Member
Urban 75 – LJAG
It was LJAG's fault. Aided by Lambeth. I went to a meeting of LJAG in late 2012 here they told me about and showed me their plan to pedestrianise LJ for the “benefit of the locals and the children”. They told me that they were hopeful of persuading Lambeth to do the plans. I thought it was pie in the sky and told them much of their assumptions about traffic were wrong. That meeting was their Xmas do and there were about 10 people there – as far as I could see I was the only one who lived on the LR side of the tracks (Angell Rd).
Much to my surprise Lambeth then adopted the plan and had a “Consultation”. At the meeting I went to Lambeth admitted they had not done traffic surveys as conditions weren’t right, but would be doing so after the experimental road closures were approved. They were asked if they had done any survey at all before propsign the plan and thye said thye had ridden around on the bicycles and this had given them a good understanding o the traffic problems in the area. I asked them (George wright I think) if they were aware that there were other ratruns (such as Witshire/Villa) which would get worse if they closed off a main road (BTW it is an accident that LR is not a B road – Hinton/Milkwood is) – he said he was not aware of this. I am not sure if I told him that the traffic problem on LR was due to the lights only allowing 2 cars through at a time (since increased to 4) and the narrowing of the road with cars parked on either side. From other questions (mainly from the myatt’s Filed/Vassall people) ti would seem they had little local knowledge, or consideration of local problems, or idea how to get data and plan changes to roads.
Effects – from my experience the effects have been pretty bad. Rat running on what used to be relatively quiet roads has increased and some roads where there was none it has become endemic. Traffic jams have made approach to KCL much more difficult and delayed (I couldn’t walk for the first few weeks of the experiment and it was not easy). The alleged pedestrian area is a joke (and 50 yards from a long-standing existing pedestrian area) and prevents people parked in Woolley House from legitimately leaving or entering their property. Businesses were barely consulted (Ian from Mayflower told me they were told the day before the consultation closed) and there was no consideration on the effect on them, especially nationally known ones like Mayflower or the steel fabricators who did some of Anish Kapoor’s stuff (Anthea from LJAG told me about them) who gave LJ its slightly arty ambiance (as opposed to fake arty now often seen in Brixton). Myaflwoer has gone and the others will follow if there is no proper plan.
LJ is going to change as it is only 10 mins from the City by train and people with money will move in. LJAG were able to hijack the area by being he only people who were doing anything and so could do it without actually asking anyone whether they wanted their plan to improve the lives of people in LJ (only on the LR side though). What is needed is a properly thought out plan about how to grow LJ in the next 10-20 yrs which involves the local people (so they have to make an effort as well to prevent further hijacking). Brixton was a destination area long before Lambeth or Brixton Village because local people and businesses made it so. LJ was growing organically and more well known business are coming here and will come here. Of course Lambeth could try starting their own nightclubs and restaurants and I am sure that with their planning and business abilities this would kick start the process – but I would rather it happened that the services matched the people who live here (which will develop as different people move here) before it started asking other people to come for a weekend away...
It was LJAG's fault. Aided by Lambeth. I went to a meeting of LJAG in late 2012 here they told me about and showed me their plan to pedestrianise LJ for the “benefit of the locals and the children”. They told me that they were hopeful of persuading Lambeth to do the plans. I thought it was pie in the sky and told them much of their assumptions about traffic were wrong. That meeting was their Xmas do and there were about 10 people there – as far as I could see I was the only one who lived on the LR side of the tracks (Angell Rd).
Much to my surprise Lambeth then adopted the plan and had a “Consultation”. At the meeting I went to Lambeth admitted they had not done traffic surveys as conditions weren’t right, but would be doing so after the experimental road closures were approved. They were asked if they had done any survey at all before propsign the plan and thye said thye had ridden around on the bicycles and this had given them a good understanding o the traffic problems in the area. I asked them (George wright I think) if they were aware that there were other ratruns (such as Witshire/Villa) which would get worse if they closed off a main road (BTW it is an accident that LR is not a B road – Hinton/Milkwood is) – he said he was not aware of this. I am not sure if I told him that the traffic problem on LR was due to the lights only allowing 2 cars through at a time (since increased to 4) and the narrowing of the road with cars parked on either side. From other questions (mainly from the myatt’s Filed/Vassall people) ti would seem they had little local knowledge, or consideration of local problems, or idea how to get data and plan changes to roads.
Effects – from my experience the effects have been pretty bad. Rat running on what used to be relatively quiet roads has increased and some roads where there was none it has become endemic. Traffic jams have made approach to KCL much more difficult and delayed (I couldn’t walk for the first few weeks of the experiment and it was not easy). The alleged pedestrian area is a joke (and 50 yards from a long-standing existing pedestrian area) and prevents people parked in Woolley House from legitimately leaving or entering their property. Businesses were barely consulted (Ian from Mayflower told me they were told the day before the consultation closed) and there was no consideration on the effect on them, especially nationally known ones like Mayflower or the steel fabricators who did some of Anish Kapoor’s stuff (Anthea from LJAG told me about them) who gave LJ its slightly arty ambiance (as opposed to fake arty now often seen in Brixton). Myaflwoer has gone and the others will follow if there is no proper plan.
LJ is going to change as it is only 10 mins from the City by train and people with money will move in. LJAG were able to hijack the area by being he only people who were doing anything and so could do it without actually asking anyone whether they wanted their plan to improve the lives of people in LJ (only on the LR side though). What is needed is a properly thought out plan about how to grow LJ in the next 10-20 yrs which involves the local people (so they have to make an effort as well to prevent further hijacking). Brixton was a destination area long before Lambeth or Brixton Village because local people and businesses made it so. LJ was growing organically and more well known business are coming here and will come here. Of course Lambeth could try starting their own nightclubs and restaurants and I am sure that with their planning and business abilities this would kick start the process – but I would rather it happened that the services matched the people who live here (which will develop as different people move here) before it started asking other people to come for a weekend away...
LadyV
Well-Known Member
A lot is made of the dutch model of doing things, I can't speak to the rest of the Netherlands but my best friend lives in Amsterdam and my understanding there is that as rule roads aren't completely blocked to cars, more that they filter traffic by having one way roads, so you go west on one side of a canal and go east on the other side, similar to the block system in New York I guess. But you are still moving traffic through without causing bottlenecks.
Also before we start raving about how wonderful the dutch model is, we should consider the impact to pedestrians in that, accidents between cars and pedestrians may have gone down but accidents between cyclists and pedestrians are still on the increase. One previous trip to Amsterdam for me involved a trip to the hospital for a cracked rib after being hit by a cyclist while standing still in a pedestrian zone where cyclists were supposed to dismount, so I am a little suspicious of comparisons to the Netherlands
LadyV
Well-Known Member
Is it their fault that they suggested something and the council went for it and then proceeded with it? LJAG didn't come up with the money or the consultation, they didn't stop any of it either but then why would they? They thought it was a good idea. Personally I think we're giving them a bit too much credit.
Either way, their credibility has been seriously dented by this and from the sound of it the new group Vassall and Coldharbour Forum have some similar aims, although their intention is to take things much much slower and be more mindful of the diversity in the area, so it'll be interesting to see how the two groups co-exist
upthejunction
Well-Known Member
It was LJAG's fault. Aided by Lambeth. I went to a meeting of LJAG in late 2012 here they told me about and showed me their plan to pedestrianise LJ for the “benefit of the locals and the children”. They told me that they were hopeful of persuading Lambeth to do the plans. I thought it was pie in the sky and told them much of their assumptions about traffic were wrong. That meeting was their Xmas do and there were about 10 people there – as far as I could see I was the only one who lived on the LR side of the tracks (Angell Rd).
Much to my surprise Lambeth then adopted the plan and had a “Consultation”. At the meeting I went to Lambeth admitted they had not done traffic surveys as conditions weren’t right, but would be doing so after the experimental road closures were approved. They were asked if they had done any survey at all before propsign the plan and thye said thye had ridden around on the bicycles and this had given them a good understanding o the traffic problems in the area. I asked them (George wright I think) if they were aware that there were other ratruns (such as Witshire/Villa) which would get worse if they closed off a main road (BTW it is an accident that LR is not a B road – Hinton/Milkwood is) – he said he was not aware of this. I am not sure if I told him that the traffic problem on LR was due to the lights only allowing 2 cars through at a time (since increased to 4) and the narrowing of the road with cars parked on either side. From other questions (mainly from the myatt’s Filed/Vassall people) ti would seem they had little local knowledge, or consideration of local problems, or idea how to get data and plan changes to roads.
Effects – from my experience the effects have been pretty bad. Rat running on what used to be relatively quiet roads has increased and some roads where there was none it has become endemic. Traffic jams have made approach to KCL much more difficult and delayed (I couldn’t walk for the first few weeks of the experiment and it was not easy). The alleged pedestrian area is a joke (and 50 yards from a long-standing existing pedestrian area) and prevents people parked in Woolley House from legitimately leaving or entering their property. Businesses were barely consulted (Ian from Mayflower told me they were told the day before the consultation closed) and there was no consideration on the effect on them, especially nationally known ones like Mayflower or the steel fabricators who did some of Anish Kapoor’s stuff (Anthea from LJAG told me about them) who gave LJ its slightly arty ambiance (as opposed to fake arty now often seen in Brixton). Myaflwoer has gone and the others will follow if there is no proper plan.
LJ is going to change as it is only 10 mins from the City by train and people with money will move in. LJAG were able to hijack the area by being he only people who were doing anything and so could do it without actually asking anyone whether they wanted their plan to improve the lives of people in LJ (only on the LR side though). What is needed is a properly thought out plan about how to grow LJ in the next 10-20 yrs which involves the local people (so they have to make an effort as well to prevent further hijacking). Brixton was a destination area long before Lambeth or Brixton Village because local people and businesses made it so. LJ was growing organically and more well known business are coming here and will come here. Of course Lambeth could try starting their own nightclubs and restaurants and I am sure that with their planning and business abilities this would kick start the process – but I would rather it happened that the services matched the people who live here (which will develop as different people move here) before it started asking other people to come for a weekend away...
Much to my surprise Lambeth then adopted the plan and had a “Consultation”. At the meeting I went to Lambeth admitted they had not done traffic surveys as conditions weren’t right, but would be doing so after the experimental road closures were approved. They were asked if they had done any survey at all before propsign the plan and thye said thye had ridden around on the bicycles and this had given them a good understanding o the traffic problems in the area. I asked them (George wright I think) if they were aware that there were other ratruns (such as Witshire/Villa) which would get worse if they closed off a main road (BTW it is an accident that LR is not a B road – Hinton/Milkwood is) – he said he was not aware of this. I am not sure if I told him that the traffic problem on LR was due to the lights only allowing 2 cars through at a time (since increased to 4) and the narrowing of the road with cars parked on either side. From other questions (mainly from the myatt’s Filed/Vassall people) ti would seem they had little local knowledge, or consideration of local problems, or idea how to get data and plan changes to roads.
Effects – from my experience the effects have been pretty bad. Rat running on what used to be relatively quiet roads has increased and some roads where there was none it has become endemic. Traffic jams have made approach to KCL much more difficult and delayed (I couldn’t walk for the first few weeks of the experiment and it was not easy). The alleged pedestrian area is a joke (and 50 yards from a long-standing existing pedestrian area) and prevents people parked in Woolley House from legitimately leaving or entering their property. Businesses were barely consulted (Ian from Mayflower told me they were told the day before the consultation closed) and there was no consideration on the effect on them, especially nationally known ones like Mayflower or the steel fabricators who did some of Anish Kapoor’s stuff (Anthea from LJAG told me about them) who gave LJ its slightly arty ambiance (as opposed to fake arty now often seen in Brixton). Myaflwoer has gone and the others will follow if there is no proper plan.
LJ is going to change as it is only 10 mins from the City by train and people with money will move in. LJAG were able to hijack the area by being he only people who were doing anything and so could do it without actually asking anyone whether they wanted their plan to improve the lives of people in LJ (only on the LR side though). What is needed is a properly thought out plan about how to grow LJ in the next 10-20 yrs which involves the local people (so they have to make an effort as well to prevent further hijacking). Brixton was a destination area long before Lambeth or Brixton Village because local people and businesses made it so. LJ was growing organically and more well known business are coming here and will come here. Of course Lambeth could try starting their own nightclubs and restaurants and I am sure that with their planning and business abilities this would kick start the process – but I would rather it happened that the services matched the people who live here (which will develop as different people move here) before it started asking other people to come for a weekend away...
bimble
floofy
upthejunction :
Your posts on page one of this thread (before i was even born) say it all really.
Did you ever get the reply you asked for 'in 7 days'?
teuchter
je suis teuchter
They've gone already - they were on the Higgs estate.
upthejunction
Well-Known Member
It is in the sense that they should have recognised that they were not repesentative of all the people in the area, nor had they consulted or surveyed them, or indeed local conditions. Clearly the majority of the blame is Lambeth's as they funded and implemented the plan - equally without proper consultation or surveys. But the ball was started rolling by LJAG and without them I doubt the Council would have done anything. Interestingly LJAG now appear to be doing a "reverese ferret" and attempting to say they are questioning the bases on which the closures were ordered by Lambeth. Had they done this at the start nothing would have happened. What I should say is that it is a quite an interesting challenge for democracy as the mode by which public authorities have a "consultation" and then come up with the answer they want (as they did here by deliberately ignoring an admittedly late petition which far outweighed the results they had previously had) is one repeated all over the country for all sorts of things, and enables them to push through patently bad ideas, or ideas objected to by the majority of the residents or people affected. Obvisouly elected representatives are there to do things and have a mandate, but all I want is for them to plan them better and explain how they are going to deal with any problems that people affected point out to them. Part of that means Councils taking an objective stance on what lobbying groups say.
BTW: Was KCL part of the consultation? Has anyone asked them?
P.S. When they do the traffic survey is it going to include areas affected by the change which are outside the original consultation and survey areas? Coldharbour lane appears to be affected all the way to the Town Hall, and Railton Road is a nightmare.
bimble
floofy
There are 2 locations on CHL on the list of where they counted traffic before the closures:
35. Coldharbour Lane Somewhere between j/w Herne Hill Rd and j/w Loughborough Rd
36. Coldharbour Lane Somewhere j/w Loughborough Road and north of j/w Shakespeare Road
Don't know if the counts will be taken in same spots after the closures. Wouldn't even count on that.
(I don't know how to upload/ share whole list it's a long thin spreadsheet)
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Obviously a rise in accidents between pedestrians and cyclists is not a good thing. But as I understand it, in Amsterdam it is in the context of a massive rise in number of cyclists on the roads. Is it balanced by a decrease in the number of pedestrian/motor vehicle accidents? It appears it is, because the overall number of road fatalities in Amsterdam is consistently falling.
So it doesn't seem like it's a valid argument against increasing the number of cyclists on the road, because it appears that in Amsterdam the increasing number of cyclists is accompanied by a decreasing number of pedestrians killed on the road.
http://www.iamexpat.nl/read-and-dis...ands-most-dangerous-city-cyclists-pedestrians
Similar threads
