concerned1
behind the small print
They chose "conveniently" to keep our concerns off there they don't want to read huge sections of text.
Loughborough Junction public space improvements - consultation begins
- Thread starter Leo Chesterton
- Start date
critical1
All views expressed are definitely my own.
Hmm does it state how many have completed the "SURVEY" I always find transparency is key in dealing with this sort of thing...
prunus
Tick tock.
It's surveymonkey. Fill it in as many times as you like from different IP addresses if you want to skew the results. It's largely pointless.
concerned1
behind the small print
What a stupid place to run a survey means they can say 69% are in favour of keeping the roads closed!!!
critical1
All views expressed are definitely my own.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
I notice on Sunday late afternoon how un-naturally busy St James's Crescent was. I may enlarge on that.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
Does that sort of thing have official status? (other than with TalkTalk, Plusnet customer satisfaction surveys etc)
bimble
floofy
Agreed, mainly because it's been made clear that in the end the decision about what to do with the roads is down to Cllr Jennifer B alone.
Oddly, though, if you look up Lambeth's website for live Consultations there is no mention of the 6 month statutory consultation the Council is obliged to run during the Expiremental TMO which has to run from 29 August 2015 to 28 February 2016. The survey monkey questionnaire (which is limited in scope) was only put up yesterday and is expected to close within the week. I don't consider this to be any form of proper consultation (nor to provide particularly reliable data). If Ms Brathwaite's decision is made in favour of making the closure permanent I think this should be judicially reviewed.
bimble
floofy
I think you're completely right. I was told on 14th by Mr Raj Mistry RMistry@lambeth.gov.uk (apparently now Lambeth's lead on this) that the consultation would be added to the website where you'd expect to see it but this hasn't happened at all.
Last edited:
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
Are you on "certain types" of benefit? Otherwise £140 to file the form & £700 for a hearing. (as I read it)
I don't think the review that's coming up (the one that was brought forward) will make the changes permanent. It will either conclude that the 'experiment' should be terminated early or that it should continue to run for the planned six months.
prunus
Tick tock.
So it all seems to be working pretty well now from my twice-daily unscientific survey. I would guess that that's a combination of people finally realising there is no way through and so finding other routes, and them finally getting the temporary traffic lights set up so that they don't completely bugger CHL traffic.
I find the whole half-arsed way this has been done very disappointing though - from the lack of proper consultation, failure it seems to properly involve the emergency services, police and tfl buses, to the (apparent? It's difficult to know) failure to do proper before and after traffic assessments (or at least publicise them well). The 'pollution' measure we've seen described has the feeling of an afterthought added on because there was a little cash left, and the ridiculous way it's being done just causes people to think the whole assessment of effects is Mickey Mouse (which it may be - there doesn't appear to be any similar document describing the rest of it?).
This turns people against what I think is probably a good scheme, or close to being a good scheme possibly with a few tweaks. This is a shame. Southwell road and environs is much nicer with traffic not cutting through from CHL to Herne hill road via Padfield. Loughborough road itself is almost infinitely more pleasurable without the endless motor noise - you can actually hear the birds sing.
Less traffic is a good thing, this scheme is delivering it to large areas of residential streets. Try to look beyond the farcical implementation, ignore the tribal them-and-us arguments about whose idea it was and consider the benefits for people who actually live here.
I find the whole half-arsed way this has been done very disappointing though - from the lack of proper consultation, failure it seems to properly involve the emergency services, police and tfl buses, to the (apparent? It's difficult to know) failure to do proper before and after traffic assessments (or at least publicise them well). The 'pollution' measure we've seen described has the feeling of an afterthought added on because there was a little cash left, and the ridiculous way it's being done just causes people to think the whole assessment of effects is Mickey Mouse (which it may be - there doesn't appear to be any similar document describing the rest of it?).
This turns people against what I think is probably a good scheme, or close to being a good scheme possibly with a few tweaks. This is a shame. Southwell road and environs is much nicer with traffic not cutting through from CHL to Herne hill road via Padfield. Loughborough road itself is almost infinitely more pleasurable without the endless motor noise - you can actually hear the birds sing.
Less traffic is a good thing, this scheme is delivering it to large areas of residential streets. Try to look beyond the farcical implementation, ignore the tribal them-and-us arguments about whose idea it was and consider the benefits for people who actually live here.
Last edited:
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Although I'm sure they're more than capable of messing it up, I hope that at least this element of the assessment has been done well enough that the results of it aren't meaningless.
It can potentially answer claims about excessive traffic on side streets (my observations have been that traffic on these streets isn't nearly as bad as you'd think from reading some of the descriptions online) and also CHL (it does seem true that traffic has been bad lately, but a traffic count showing, say, gradually declining volumes week-on-week would be convincing evidence that the scheme should be given more time).
bimble
floofy
You talk a lot of sense prunus. It's true people like me have becomes so mired in the disastrous implementation of the whole thing that it's become hard to admit that the other day when walking along Loughborough Road on a sunny morning it was lovely, I enjoyed the quiet, the respite from the relentless traffic elsewhere.
Fact remains though (leaving aside the implementation side) that for me personally the day to day practical effects have been negative, firstly because there is no improvement to traffic on the particular corner where I live, only an marked increase in awkward and potentially dangerous maneuvering of large vehicles into a tight turn, and secondly because my daily route along coldharbour lane has been made significantly more unpleasant (either by bus or on foot) due to the increase in traffic on what was always a busy road.
I also feel, having seen so many emergency vehicles unable to move forwards over the last few weeks, that I'm lucky it's quite unlikely to be me who needs to call one.
Fact remains though (leaving aside the implementation side) that for me personally the day to day practical effects have been negative, firstly because there is no improvement to traffic on the particular corner where I live, only an marked increase in awkward and potentially dangerous maneuvering of large vehicles into a tight turn, and secondly because my daily route along coldharbour lane has been made significantly more unpleasant (either by bus or on foot) due to the increase in traffic on what was always a busy road.
I also feel, having seen so many emergency vehicles unable to move forwards over the last few weeks, that I'm lucky it's quite unlikely to be me who needs to call one.
Last edited:
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Just re-read this.
So you are saying the area is "well and truly kettled" whilst describing that it was entirely possible for you to get to your destination by car.
And you were delayed by 10-15 minutes as a result of several abortive attempts to find a route. So you now know the route - which means next time your car journey might take 5 minutes longer than before the closures, because it is slightly less direct. Not exactly a big deal is it?
You speak as a pedestrian/public transport user - and say the area is "kettled", yet by foot or public transport it is every bit as accessible as before.
The only ways in or out now involve driving through narrow roads with a sufficient volume of parked cars to cause problems if other vehicles are trying to go the other way. At busy times this can cause substantial delays.
Every time there is a 'road improvement' scheme they always say it will only add a few minutes to your journey. But the cumulative effect of many such schemes can add a lot more than that.
bimble
floofy
In relation to that, I keep getting stuck on the basics of the whole idea of a very local scheme like this if it is supposed to have environmental/ air quality benefits. I mean, if everyone is driving a longer way round, how does that reduce pollution? confused of LJ.
critical1
All views expressed are definitely my own.
Not really if the additional time taken to walk,then take a very slow bus that has been adulterated by road narrowing to slow traffic down & road closures, which further impacts on your journey time as far away as Camberwell, Herne Hill and Brixton.
The cumulative effect is an additional 45mins on any journey.
Mr Slow makes it plain in any language.
Well, it doesn't. As you say, you have to go a longer distance and on lower quality roads, so at lower speed. Also, you will spend more time sitting in traffic jams. Thus overall the amount of pollution generated by that journey will increase.
The only way it could possibly work is if the number of motor vehicle journeys decreased by a sufficient amount to offset that. Cue studies, statistics etc ...
teuchter
je suis teuchter
If you are trying to make cross-town journeys that cut through multiple residntial areas with narrow streets, then the whole point of schemes like this is to discourage you from doing that.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
That's right, the facts are there to show that it can work. But you prefer to disregard those inconvenient facts, right?
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Only if you can give a good reason why you are not convinced "in this very local instance" (whatever that actually means).
(And no, it is not the case that I believe a significant proportion of drivers will "simply stop driving". Some will choose not to drive for certain journeys, and continue to drive for others. But in the longer term, some may well decide it's not worth having a car at all. And/or to use a car club instead.)
bimble
floofy
teuchter I would be interested (genuinely seriously) in seeing a study that demonstrates how a scheme of this scale (ie shutting one road and a few directly connected sidestreets) has been proven to push a significant number of people to give up driving and take up alternatives instead.
Similar threads
