Loughborough Junction public space improvements - consultation begins

[irf520]

I'm not sure what sort of evidence would satisfy you, to my mind its more of an issue of logic. Unless you think most of the vehicles that used to use Loughborough Road have just vanished, then its reasonable to assume they are to a large extent the ones currently clogging up CHL.
An hour ago for instance I saw an ambulance, sirens on, lights flashing, moving down coldharbour lane at a snails pace. No place of course for the cars to go to get out of its way.

You know what he thinks. He thinks if you leave the roads closed long enough people will give up and stop driving and then the traffic will all disappear, sorry, evaporate. No doubt he can give you lots of papers with lots of statistics in them to justify that point of view. Of course, in the interim things will be much worse and some number of people might suffer adverse consequences up to and including death on account of ambulances being delayed. But in his world that is "collateral damage" and worth it. The end justifies the means, remember. You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.

 

[teuchter]

An official statement from the Ambulance Service saying that the current congestion is putting people's lives significantly more at risk than before the closures would convince me that this is a serious concern.

Of course that woudn't necessarily prove that the congestion is all down to the LR closure.

And in any case it woud have to be examined in a wider context. Are there other routes that are now faster for ambulances? Has the average response time in the wider area worsened?

 

[bimble]

An official statement from the Ambulance Service saying that the current congestion is putting people's lives significantly more at risk than before the closures would convince me that this is a serious concern.

I would like to know how "official' it should be to satisfy you. Would headed ambulance paper do it for you or would you require the official statement to be officially reproduced by the official Lambeth review?

 

[ChrisSouth]

His assertions seem surprisingy evidence-free for a QC.

And technically incorrect. For someone who is a QC this is quite shocking. I wouldn't want him defending me. There is no junction of Coldharbour Lane and Milkwood Road.

 

[teuchter]

You know what he thinks. He thinks if you leave the roads closed long enough people will give up and stop driving and then the traffic will all disappear, sorry, evaporate. No doubt he can give you lots of papers with lots of statistics in them to justify that point of view. Of course, in the interim things will be much worse and some number of people might suffer adverse consequences up to and including death on account of ambulances being delayed. But in his world that is "collateral damage" and worth it. The end justifies the means, remember. You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.

Every time you get in your car and turn the ignition, you increase the chance that someone's going to die. That's the collateral damage you cause. What's the long-term benefit that outweighs that risk?

 

[bimble]

In a way, for people who support this scheme thinking that it's part of a wider air pollution reduction strategy and all, it must just be really annoying that Kings Hospital is so close to the site.

 

[irf520]

Every time you get in your car and turn the ignition, you increase the chance that someone's going to die. That's the collateral damage you cause. What's the long-term benefit that outweighs that risk?

Pretty much everything you buy generated pollution during its production and will generate more during its disposal. Every time you turn on a light switch, put something in the refrigerator, take an aeroplane trip - it all generates pollution. The pollution might not be local to you, but it's there. If you want to eliminate pollution you need to go back to the stone age.

 

[irf520]

And technically incorrect. For someone who is a QC this is quite shocking. I wouldn't want him defending me. There is no junction of Coldharbour Lane and Milkwood Road.

That doesn't really affect what he's saying though, does it? He's a barrister, not a black taxi driver.

 

[teuchter]

Pretty much everything you buy generated pollution during its production and will generate more during its disposal. Every time you turn on a light switch, put something in the refrigerator, take an aeroplane trip - it all generates pollution. The pollution might not be local to you, but it's there. If you want to eliminate pollution you need to go back to the stone age.

And?

 

[bimble]

Pretty much everything you buy generated pollution during its production and will generate more during its disposal. Every time you turn on a light switch, put something in the refrigerator, take an aeroplane trip - it all generates pollution. The pollution might not be local to you, but it's there. If you want to eliminate pollution you need to go back to the stone age.

I don't think teuchter buys things that have been on lorries, I think he survives on wild berries and rainwater and knits his own shoes.

 

[AlexH]

What I mean is that every half-baked point raised in his/her post has already been answered multiple times in this thread.

Oh dear Teuchter, I have been following the thread quite carefully, thanks. The points I make are shared by many others. To describe them as half-baked is silly, and to say they have been 'answered' multiple times is unfounded. The many reasoned views expressed by those opposing the road closure are not 'jumping to conclusions' or based on speculation: they are grounded in the reality of how the closure is affecting those of us who live in, and travel through the locality. I can't see that getting better in the future by continuing what is a speculative experiment that so far has not worked. Has there been an increase in pedestrians enjoying the benefit of the road closure in the area? The evidence suggests not. And if not, why not? There are some questions for you. Please answer.

 

[bimble]

Please answer.

Don't think T likes answering direct questions. When he says ' all objections have already been answered" i think all he means is that they've failed to convince him personally that this experiment is not an unbridled success.

 

[CH1]

An hour ago for instance I saw an ambulance, sirens on, lights flashing, moving down coldharbour lane at a snails pace. No place of course for the cars to go to get out of its way.

Saw the same thing yesterday with what I assumed to be an unmarked police car (flashing) which had to pull over opposite the Domino Club to get instructions on how to get out of there - having turned out of Barrington Road into total gridlock on CHL.

 

[Aeryn]

You know what he thinks. He thinks if you leave the roads closed long enough people will give up and stop driving and then the traffic will all disappear, sorry, evaporate. No doubt he can give you lots of papers with lots of statistics in them to justify that point of view. Of course, in the interim things will be much worse and some number of people might suffer adverse consequences up to and including death on account of ambulances being delayed. But in his world that is "collateral damage" and worth it. The end justifies the means, remember. You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.

Given that a couple of years ago he was arguing that cycling should be banned altogether because it was far too dangerous, while simultaneously asking for people's recommendations for the fastest driving routes through London in rush hour, I think he actually just likes arguing with people. Either that or he ran somebody over.

 

[CH1]

This is very exciting.
George Wright wrote to me. He says 11,000 flyers are on their way..
View attachment 78415

Braithewaite said that 11,000 people had already been consulted in her email quoted on Facebook (above)

Consultation prior to the road closures was comprehensive, with around 11,000 residents and businesses contacted and our officers are in on-going dialogue with Transport for London, the emergency services and community representatives.Following feedback from residents and local councillors, Lambeth council will bring forward its planned review of the experimental road closures in Loughborough Junction.

I doubt that is true - as I understtand truth.

 

[bimble]

Yes, there's that word comprehensive again.

 

[CH1]

Every time you get in your car and turn the ignition, you increase the chance that someone's going to die. That's the collateral damage you cause. What's the long-term benefit that outweighs that risk?

That is hyperbole. Every time you turn your electric kettle on you increase the chance someone's going to die by that logic.

 

[teuchter]

Oh dear Teuchter, I have been following the thread quite carefully, thanks. The points I make are shared by many others. To describe them as half-baked is silly, and to say they have been 'answered' multiple times is unfounded. The many reasoned views expressed by those opposing the road closure are not 'jumping to conclusions' or based on speculation: they are grounded in the reality of how the closure is affecting those of us who live in, and travel through the locality. I can't see that getting better in the future by continuing what is a speculative experiment that so far has not worked. Has there been an increase in pedestrians enjoying the benefit of the road closure in the area? The evidence suggests not. And if not, why not? There are some questions for you. Please answer.

Lets remind ourselves what you were saying in your previous post:

Teuchter, I think your agenda is clear now: you want to ban cars/other motor vehicles from LJ (and possibly throughout the borough). You are likely to be in a tiny minority. I suspect most residents in this borough, including those of the 3000 who have already signed the petition online to end the closures would disagree. For many, particular those unable to cycle safely, or with families particularly those who are unable to walk far having a vehicle is essential: one only need look down at the parked cars/vans/minicabs along LR itself, and the myriad residential streets around LJ and HH to see this is the case. It would be great of course if the public transport system were sufficiently capable to transport everyone safely to their many destinations that obviously will never be the case. It is idealistic nonsense to think one can turn back the clock and close roads or that by doing that at LJ you will achieve the aim: the function of LJ is essentially a junction for traffic with adjacent residences, and businesse, and traffic flow before closures was just fine, now it is far worse and will continue to be so. You cannot wish away 10,000 vehicles that use the area.

The points in this post essentially outline your reasons for believing that the whole exercise is pointless and that the basic concept of trying to change people's travel habits is infeasible. These points have been addressed earlier in the thread.

You are now focussing on something different which is the situation at the moment. In response to your questions about the situation at the moment, no there is no objective evidence that demonstrates an increase in pedestrians enjoying the benefit of the road closure. Why not? Because the experiment has only been running for a couple of weeks and it is too soon to expect all benefits to be apparent. As I and others have already stated approximately a zillion times on this thread in response to variations on that same question.

 

[teuchter]

That is hyperbole. Every time you turn your electric kettle on you increase the chance someone's going to die by that logic.

It woud have been more precise of me to say "release the handbrake and press the accelerator" instead of "turn the ignition".
Everything we do has consequences.
Some people are making a big thing about a supposed increase in risk of death as a consequence of the implementation of this experiment. That increased risk is not quantified and might not exist at all. In my opinion, based on evidence currently available, it's outweighed by the potential long term benefits of a wider implementation of these kinds of measures.
I was asking if the small chance of killing someone each time you make a car journey is outweighed by the benefits of making that journey. And i was wondring if irf520 weighs up that cost/benefit ratio using the same reasoning he is applying to this experiment which seems to be to speculate about the risks and dismiss the evidence of the potential benefits.

 

[CH1]

Everything we do has consequences.

Using kettles contributes to pollution, yes. Pollution costs lives, yes?
Your idea of cause and effect is very all embracing. Maybe you might care to comment on this major pubic transport issue:

In 2011, figures for the decade were released by TfL. The rate had gone up to 80 per year, as compared with 46 in the year 2000, and this was attributed to the financial crisis. The worst-affected station was King's Cross St. Pancras while the numbers for the decade by line were:[12]
[from Wikipedia Suicide on the London Underground - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - which is replete with statistics]

In your Extreme Moral Maze mode would you
a - close the London Underground because it is too dangerous
b - psychological test before passengers are allowed to use the underground
c- implement safety doors on all stations like on the Jubilee Line Extension (from London Bridge to Stratford) meanwhile closing all stations other than those on the Jubilee Line Extension whilst these measures are put in hand
d- install a Samaritan hotline phone on all platforms (as has been done on the Orwell Bridge in Suffolk - a rural suicide hotspot)

Meanwhile you are advocating closing a local road in LJ without citing any accident statistics at all as far ass I can see.

There was a popular rock album when I was a school boy. I dedicate to you:

I haven't even had a drink (yet).

 

[critical1]

I do (and will ask what's up).

Stockwell Partnership (paid a few thousand to do the qualitative research on this by Lambeth):
Steve@stockwell.org.uk,
John@stockwell.org.uk,
Aga@stockwell.org.uk

View attachment 78411

"Feed back to officers at regular points" this stinks of non-consultation... as SP are only doing one consultation not a series, so why on earth would they say that its an ongoing thing and looking for "Buy in"

Strange wording indeed...

 

[teuchter]

Using kettles contributes to pollution, yes. Pollution costs lives, yes?
Your idea of cause and effect is very all embracing. Maybe you might care to comment on this major pubic transport issue:

In 2011, figures for the decade were released by TfL. The rate had gone up to 80 per year, as compared with 46 in the year 2000, and this was attributed to the financial crisis. The worst-affected station was King's Cross St. Pancras while the numbers for the decade by line were:[12]
[from Wikipedia Suicide on the London Underground - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - which is replete with statistics]

In your Extreme Moral Maze mode would you
a - close the London Underground because it is too dangerous
b - psychological test before passengers are allowed to use the underground
c- implement safety doors on all stations like on the Jubilee Line Extension (from London Bridge to Stratford) meanwhile closing all stations other than those on the Jubilee Line Extension whilst these measures are put in hand
d- install a Samaritan hotline phone on all platforms (as has been done on the Orwell Bridge in Suffolk - a rural suicide hotspot)

Meanwhile you are advocating closing a local road in LJ without citing any accident statistics at all as far ass I can see.

There was a popular rock album when I was a school boy. I dedicate to you:
View attachment 78420
I haven't even had a drink (yet).

a,b,c: I would not do because the costs would outweigh the benefits
d: seems like a reasonable idea as the costs would be small and the benefits could be significant. In fact this is already what's done on many overground stations.

Regarding the LJ closures, I don't see much evidence to suggest that the risk to life resulting from the experiment is significant. On the other hand there is lots of precedent for other similar schemes having been implemented and having led to improvements in road safety and other things, as has already been discussed on the thread.

As every situation is different and complex, it can't be guaranteed that the LJ scheme will bring enough benefits to outweigh disbenefits. The point of an experiment is to find out what happens when you change something. We've started that experiment, so I think we should carry it through. Then we should look at the results and make a decision about whether it should be made permanent.

That's it. There is no "extreme moral maze".

This is also not "blind faith".

 

[CH1]

a,b,c: I would not do because the costs would outweigh the benefits
d: seems like a reasonable idea as the costs would be small and the benefits could be significant. In fact this is already what's done on many overground stations.

Regarding the LJ closures, I don't see much evidence to suggest that the risk to life resulting from the experiment is significant. On the other hand there is lots of precedent for other similar schemes having been implemented and having led to improvements in road safety and other things, as has already been discussed on the thread.

As every situation is different and complex, it can't be guaranteed that the LJ scheme will bring enough benefits to outweigh disbenefits. The point of an experiment is to find out what happens when you change something. We've started that experiment, so I think we should carry it through. Then we should look at the results and make a decision about whether it should be made permanent.

That's it. There is no "extreme moral maze".

This is also not "blind faith".

So to recap:
You will be satisfied if the experiment runs its course and the road closure is then scrapped (or retained)
You do not accept this closure is being done by a foot in the door method
You are satisfied with the council's methods in assessing the results of the experiment (whatever they may be)
You do not think it reasonable for residents to object to day to day problems caused by the experiment no matter how serious.

 

[critical1]

Regarding the LJ closures, I don't see much evidence to suggest that the risk to life resulting from the experiment is significant. On the other hand there is lots of precedent for other similar schemes having been implemented and having led to improvements in road safety and other things, as has already been discussed on the thread.

As every situation is different and complex, it can't be guaranteed that the LJ scheme will bring enough benefits to outweigh disbenefits.
That's it. There is no "extreme moral maze".
This is also not "blind faith".

WOW I always thought "Every Life Matters"

 

[concerned1]

Have to wonder who teuchter is as teuchter says "we've started that experiment" certainly know it is a very few individuals who started it.
Well for one I do not think the "we" should carry it through".
Too many people are suffering way too much due to this ill thought out scheme.
It should be halted now and look at alternative measures.

 

[critical1]

Have to wonder who teuchter is as teuchter says "we've started that experiment" certainly know it is a very few individuals who started it.
Well for one I do not think the "we" should carry it through".
Too many people are suffering way too much due to this ill thought out scheme.
It should be halted now and look at alternative measures.

Hmmm good question who is teuchter in light of the above...

 

[teuchter]

So to recap:
You will be satisfied if the experiment runs its course and the road closure is then scrapped (or retained)

I will be satisfied if it runs its course and the decision on scrapping/retention is based on an as objective as reasonably possible review of the best available information on its effects.

You do not accept this closure is being done by a foot in the door method

Depends what you mean exactly by "foot in the door method".

You are satisfied with the council's methods in assessing the results of the experiment (whatever they may be)

Incorrect statement.

You do not think it reasonable for residents to object to day to day problems caused by the experiment no matter how serious.

Incorrect statement.

 

[concerned1]

I and thousands of others object to these road closures and it is a mere handful who agree to seeing it through the duration.
It will do untold damage, irreversible in some cases to continue this crazy scheme on.
It is unbelievable that one person, a Councillor can agree to such a ludicrous proposal.

What is the role of a Councillor?
According to The role of a local government councillor

Councils are made up of members – called councillors - who together represent the people in their jurisdiction. Councillors are directly elected to represent the people and therefore have to consider not just the interests of their local electorate, but those throughout the whole area to create a harmonious local environment.
"To create a harmonious local environment."

Clearly NOT being created at Loughborough Junction and surrounding areas by Cllr Brathwaite.

Role of councillors - Good Governance Guide

strategic planning for the whole municipality and a sustainable future
facilitating community participation
liaising and coordinating with other levels of government, non-government, community groups and the private sector

It is disgraceful for Lambeth Council to allow this to take place.
Cllrs sat and listened to facts that some were clearly not correct at a Call In.
They also went along with this scheme and allowed it.
They have all failed and brought bad publicity on many levels to Lambeth Council, failed a lot of their constituents, businesses, public bodies, emergency services, old, vulnerable, disabled, impoverished families the list goes on.
And all for what?

 

[CH1]

What is the role of a Councillor?
According to The role of a local government councillor
Role of councillors - Good Governance Guide

These references are outmoded and outdated, unfortunately.
There are no more committees or ratepayers.
There is currently a two tier Bairite democratic structure here in Lambeth [the three tier full monty would be topped by an elected executive mayor]

The ordinary councillors are looking for a role, frankly. To be fair the Coldharbour Ward councillors have highlighted the Loughborough Road issue and asked for residents objections to be taken more seriously.

The top table - the CABINET MEMBERS - exist to manage the plebs, working with the executive officers of the council.

That is what Janet Brathwaite (who according to her own party's ward propaganda was elected with 15% of the vote) is doing now.

 

[critical1]

These references are outmoded and outdated, unfortunately.
There are no more committees or ratepayers.
There is currently a two tier Bairite democratic structure here in Lambeth [the three tier full monty would be topped by an elected executive mayor]

The ordinary councillors are looking for a role, frankly. To be fair the Coldharbour Ward councillors have highlighted the Loughborough Road issue and asked for residents objections to be taken more seriously.

The top table - the CABINET MEMBERS - exist to manage the plebs, working with the executive officers of the council.

That is what Janet Brathwaite (who according to her own party's ward propaganda was elected with 15% of the vote) is doing now.