Loughborough Junction public space improvements - consultation begins

[teuchter]

Well, doing them just now (instead of a month later) is a consequence of the review time being brought forward, is it not?

 

[bimble]

Well, doing them just now (instead of a month later) is a consequence of the review time being brought forward, is it not?

Yes, you could say it's the fault of people like me that they had no choice but to do the traffic count during the half term holidays. I feel awful. Really?

Look: Even their own joke document about the air quality measurements does make a point of saying that school holidays must be avoided if you want to get a reasonably useful result :

 

[teuchter]

Yes, in a way you could say it's the fault of people like me that they had no choice but to do the traffic count during the half term holidays. I feel awful. Really?

Yes it is. The quality of the information that we will have at 8 weeks will be less than what we would have had at 12 weeks. The result of bringing the review forward is that decisions will be made on the basis of worse data than would otherwise have been the case.

 

[bimble]

I'm sorry teucher but I don't take full responsibility for the fact that the council decided to do its traffic counting on coldharbour lane smack in the middle of half term, directly against their own stated 'rules'. . Why not do them next week for instance?

 

[bimble]

 

[teuchter]

That's 6 movements in total (i.e 30 per week for me as an idividual). The closures that most directly alter my routes/habits were Lilford, Lougborough Rd, Padfield and Calais St.

Customers are all over London and also Kent, Sussex, Surrey - hence the bias to the south.

Padfield was a useful escape valve for traffic needing to head south to Dulwich on HHR and helped to prevent build-up of west bound traffic at the main CHL/HHR and CHL/LR lights - and as most premises here are "light-industrial", I think the position of that closure was daft. Making Southwell Rd no-entry from Padfield might have been a better solution to improving life for those residential blocks south of CHL.

My altered behaviour now makes me use Denmark Rd all the time for outbound journeys to the south - or if it's blocked at the junction with CHL / when CHL is solid westbound, I may divert via Warner Rd / past Crawford School back onto CHL to Camberwell and turn up Denmark Hill instead. It adds distance (and takes me past a school!). I say this just to illustrate that some of my journeys are now displaced onto roads that I never used to drive on before. Some may call this "rat-running", but frankly i'm just a local who is based in the "red-lined" area just trying to get out and carry on my business.

The 15K estimated extra cost includes;
- direct staff cost (people spending longer time in vehicles than before),
- opportunity costs (the fact that this dead time can no longer be used to generate revenue from customer site visits)
Of course both of these figures can be influenced by the rate of pay and charge out price for a given engineer/skill set - but I'm not prepared to go into that on public forums.
- direct transport costs. The business doesn't own its own vehicles, we pay the AMAP rate for staff/contractors to use their own, so increased distance directly translates to increased cost. Adding just 0.5 mile deviation to a single trip equates to 0.23p (based on 45p/mile). It sounds a petty/insignificant amount, but by the time it gets added to every journey, those few pence become £6-7 / week or £300/year... per person.

I would add that our mileage expsenses are potentially useful data for this excercise, but given that we dont receive all claims within a short enough time period, I couldn't provide actual stats till after the consultation closes. At the moment I'm extrapolating from my own mileage expenses.

Travelling to and from jobs (and parking!) is one of the major costs for our business - and it seems to be getting increasingly hard to control.

Ok. Thanks for the extra info.

I understand what you are saying about extra time adding up. Especially if you are making very frequent journeys through the affected area, and if your particular business means that you rarely make journeys in other directions (which may have become slightly faster and partially compensate for the effect).

You say you now always use Denmark Rd when travelling south. I'm guessing based on what you've said that your location is somewhere near the roundabout which connects Denmark Rd and Flodden Rd. So I thought I'd look at what the real implications of that change in journey route are. Here are two maps, one showing the post-closures route and one showing the pre-closures route (I've had to show it as far as Styles Gardens as google maps won't let me plan a route through the closed section. But this should mean it under-estimates the time if anything).




I know that Google maps can't be a definitive authority on journey times, but the comparison is:
Old route - 3 mins, 0.7 miles
New route - 4 mins (3 mins without traffic), 0.8 miles

So the real time difference is 1 minute extra, if there is traffic, or zero difference if the road is clear.

And an additional 0.1 miles.

Sure, you can add those up and say that's actually 138 extra miles a year, but that's in the context of a total mileage that must be in the thousands. The extra mileage cost per year based on your figures is about £62. Or £30 during a 6 month experimental period. And depending on traffic, cost in extra time could be up to a couple of hundred depending how much you pay yourself.

These numbers don't seem to me the kind of numbers that are going to ruin a business. And this is, for now, ignoring all the potential benefits, maybe not to you but to others, if the scheme is successful.

Of course, you may say that the reality is that the increase in journey time is more than 1 minute because of the congestion on Coldharbour Lane and Denmark Hill, and I would accept that this then becomes a significant issue.

And I would accept that if it appears there's going to be a long term problem with increased congestion on CHL then this could be a valid reason for saying that the scheme does not work.

 

[teuchter]

I'm sorry teucher but I don't take full responsibility for the fact that the council decided to do its traffic counting on coldharbour lane smack in the middle of half term, directly against their own stated 'rules'. . Why not do them next week for instance?

Maybe because then they wouldn't be able to report back within the 8 weeks deadline they now have (and which it looks like they are already late on)?

 

[Burn:Cycle]

Ok. Thanks for the extra info.

I understand what you are saying about extra time adding up. Especially if you are making very frequent journeys through the affected area, and if your particular business means that you rarely make journeys in other directions (which may have become slightly faster and partially compensate for the effect).

You say you now always use Denmark Rd when travelling south. I'm guessing based on what you've said that your location is somewhere near the roundabout which connects Denmark Rd and Flodden Rd. So I thought I'd look at what the real implications of that change in journey route are. Here are two maps, one showing the post-closures route and one showing the pre-closures route (I've had to show it as far as Styles Gardens as google maps won't let me plan a route through the closed section. But this should mean it under-estimates the time if anything).


View attachment 78664View attachment 78665

I know that Google maps can't be a definitive authority on journey times, but the comparison is:
Old route - 3 mins, 0.7 miles
New route - 4 mins (3 mins without traffic), 0.8 miles

So the real time difference is 1 minute extra, if there is traffic, or zero difference if the road is clear.

And an additional 0.1 miles.

Sure, you can add those up and say that's actually 138 extra miles a year, but that's in the context of a total mileage that must be in the thousands. The extra mileage cost per year based on your figures is about £62. Or £30 during a 6 month experimental period. And depending on traffic, cost in extra time could be up to a couple of hundred depending how much you pay yourself.

These numbers don't seem to me the kind of numbers that are going to ruin a business. And this is, for now, ignoring all the potential benefits, maybe not to you but to others, if the scheme is successful.

Of course, you may say that the reality is that the increase in journey time is more than 1 minute because of the congestion on Coldharbour Lane and Denmark Hill, and I would accept that this then becomes a significant issue.

And I would accept that if it appears there's going to be a long term problem with increased congestion on CHL then this could be a valid reason for saying that the scheme does not work.

I think you may misunderstand my argument. I'm less concerned with the direct impact of a particular road closure on my ability to use a route I may have used in the past. I agree the extra distance travelled in that case is small. My concern is that the overall impact of the changes has created a traffic problem where there wasn't one before and that we now have to take routes that avoid the LR/CHL junction problem or be prepared to sit in the queue and wait.

When planning the route and looking at our "displacement behaviour" its actually more useful to look at the impact of the LJ closures on a typical journey beyond just going to LJ itself!
The point being we are nearly always trying to get to destinations south of the railway line at LJ. In reality, we only have two or three local options; Denmark Hill/Herne Hill or CHL/Herne Hill Road or Denmark Hill - Dog Kennel Hill. Of course we could go further west - towards Brixton (even longer) or consider Hinton Rd/Milkwood Rd - but the southern end at Herne Hill can also be a problem.

Accept the roundabout at Denmark/Flodden/Calais/Knatchbull is a good starting point. A better reference destination would be the South Circular Road at West Dulwich station - ie the closest/most direct point to a major arterial route from where we can get to all points south. This is close enough to show the local effect of our real-world displacement behaviour whilst getting us south of the railway line and onto the major roads network.

This google maps result has given a pretty good overview of the options we are presented with (although we could also use the full length of Denmark Hill). Apologies to whoever is at 112 Denmark Road - Google directions labelled my pin to the roundabout with that address.


You will see that the time variation is between 12 and 18 minutes for alternate routes of between 2.9 and 3.5 miles. I think my indicative figures for an extra 5 minutes and 0.4 miles are therefore well grounded - given that the spread shown on Google is between 1-2 minutes and 0.2 miles for the "school holidays / CHL is OK" route options (i.e. our normal route) and up to 6 minutes /0.6 miles for the "avoid LJ/CHL at all costs" alternative.

For us, the cost of the trial period are manageable (even for 6 months). A year or longer on the basis of the experience so far would not be.

If service businesses that rely on transport are not welcome in LJ (a light industrial area) - and the community vote for no traffic and a cafe environment, then ultimately we will be pushed out. That plays clearly to the "gentrification" argument.

Talk of closure of Herne Hill Road or Hinton Road as an alternative plan would be disastrous for us. I suspect the businesses on Milkwood Road estates (esp International Coachlines that operate the Dulwich schools bus services) would also be rather stuck....

I've rattled on enough. Time to do some paying work.

 

[teuchter]

But you're talking about a 5 minute variation between your options at the moment, not 5 minutes extra on your fastest route before the closures. Before the closures, you'd have an additional option via Loughborough Rd but as I showed that is only very slightly shorter/quicker. Your fastest route to W Dulwich now is barely any slower than it would have been before.

As I said, if it appears extra congestion on CHL is likely to be a long term effect then I agree that becomes a significant hindrance for you, and potentially a good reason not to continue the scheme. But the closures do not actually mean you have to go an unreasonably roundabout route.

 

[bimble]

if it appears extra congestion on CHL is likely to be a long term effect

But how will we know for certain teuchter instead of just anecdatally?
It looks like the official traffic counting that will inform the official report will be of little use I think you agree.
Is it true you live on CHL yourself?

 

[teuchter]

We will know from looking at traffic count data on completion of the 6 month period.

If the project is abandoned early, we'll never know.

I do not live on CHL.

 

[SpamMisery]

Drove through LJ today at 11:00. First time since the closures I think. Traffic seemed fine, no different. Nothing compared to the traffic in Camberwell and New Cross! 'kinell!

 

[concerned1]

It is half term at the moment for all the schools which makes a huge difference.

 

[SpamMisery]

Maybe, I don't know the school run routes, but Camberwell was terrible.

 

[Brixton Hatter]

Having seen the closures for the past 7 weeks, here's a few observations:

- It is much more pleasant to live, work, walk and cycle in the 'LJ triangle' area
- Traffic and emissions are hugely reduced in the area, esp. Loughborough Road, Akerman Road, Lilford Road etc
- The roads are generally quieter and safer, and I feel safer with my 21 month year old kid with me (both walking and cycling.)
- After an initial clusterfuck of traffic along Coldharbour Lane, with confused drivers not knowing where to go, traffic appears to have reduced, with people driving alternative routes and avoiding the area. The traffic now appears to be at levels comparable with 'rush hour' in other parts of London.
- Some of the closures haven't been thought through properly, e.g. lots of drivers rat run through the estate between St James's Crescent and Barrington Road in order to avoid the 'No Entry' signs. This isn't good. But it can be easily remedied with a further closure and/or a one way system or bollard. (I imagine the only thing stopping this at the moment is the bulding work, which means large lorries etc need full access.)
- Other streets suffer from a similar problem: the fact the closures aren't good enough yet means new rat runs are being created. But this can be solved/improved. It may be that more closures are required to make the streets better for residents, locals and visitors.

The scheme is not perfect. And it should be improved. But I'm genuinely impressed at Lambeth Council taking a radical step like this. Those who know my posts know I am generally no fan of the council, but I think this is potentially a great thing to do. I think the gentrification/farm/class thing is a massive red herring. If we are to make London a genuinely livable city, a truly great place to live where kids don't grow up with poor health, lung diseases and get killed in road accidents, then we need to do things like this, and not to pander to the motor lobby, most of who don't even live in our area which they want to drive through & pollute every day.

 

[leanderman]

Outstanding post

Backed up by a report this week showing lung capacity is 10 per cent lower in kids living in polluted areas:

 

[Brixton Hatter]

The other thing I forgot to mention is the ambulances. I've seen CHL lots recently when it's busy at rush hour and yes, this is a problem if the blue lights can't get through. But this is as much about street design and driver behaviour than it is about the road closures. Many other streets in London are like this - narrowish, but the emergency services manage to get through. I think the solution is partly (a) for drivers to be more considerate and get the fuck out of the way when required, and (b) to remove some of the on-street car parking which is taking up space on our roads. Why should our taxes pay for (mainly) wealthy people to store their cars on main roads, the purpose of which should be for moving people & traffic?

 

[concerned1]

Cllr Brathwaite should be proud of herself petitioning the Mayor of London about reducing pollution from buses on Brixton Road and Streatham High Street whilst adding even more pollution (not only from buses) to Brixton Road, Coldharbour Lane and many more smaller roads!

 

[CH1]

- Some of the closures haven't been thought through properly, e.g. lots of drivers rat run through the estate between St James's Crescent and Barrington Road in order to avoid the 'No Entry' signs. This isn't good. But it can be easily remedied with a further closure and/or a one way system or bollard. (I imagine the only thing stopping this at the moment is the bulding work, which means large lorries etc need full access.)

Agree your post is civil and decenly argued. I don't agree and the nub of the matter is what you have put above.

More and more restrictions to solve a clash of social aspirations - driven by idealism.
Would Lambeth Council DARE to introduce a rule forbidding tenants to own or park a car when they have been used to doing so for up to 50 years in some cases? On the grounds of equity with the new Mayor-sponsored Metropolitan two crane rapido development in Barrington Road?

I wonder.

 

[CH1]

The other thing I forgot to mention is the ambulances. I've seen CHL lots recently when it's busy at rush hour and yes, this is a problem if the blue lights can't get through. But this is as much about street design and driver behaviour than it is about the road closures. Many other streets in London are like this - narrowish, but the emergency services manage to get through. I think the solution is partly (a) for drivers to be more considerate and get the fuck out of the way when required, and (b) to remove some of the on-street car parking which is taking up space on our roads. Why should our taxes pay for (mainly) wealthy people to store their cars on main roads, the purpose of which should be for moving people & traffic?

As for this - making house maintenance more difficult and expensive. Thank you very much. Try managing proper emergency maintenance e.g. window repair after a burglary. Requires guarding the open back of a transit and watching for traffic wardens as it is.

More restrictions and maybe we will need an Act of Parliament to get scaffolded and re-roofed.

P.S. I don't have a car, but do need people to park outside my house occasionally.

 

[Brixton Hatter]

Agree your post is civil and decenly argued. I don't agree and the nub of the matter is what you have put above.

More and more restrictions to solve a clash of social aspirations - driven by idealism.
Would Lambeth Council DARE to introduce a rule forbidding tenants to own or park a car when they have been used to doing so for up to 50 years in some cases? On the grounds of equity with the new Mayor-sponsored Metropolitan two crane rapido development in Barrington Road?

I wonder.

I don't think anyone is suggesting tenants won't be able to own or park a car outside their house/block, as they've always been able to do.

Question is - who are the streets for?

 

[CH1]

I don't think anyone is suggesting tenants won't be able to own or park a car outside their house/block, as they've always been able to do.

Question is - who are the streets for?

What are they for more like. And I would say they are for communication.

What you are supporting here is censorship of road use.

Could be valid - but if a restriction is introduced which then needs another 10 restrictions to make it work I would say you are venturing into a regime of excessive control.

 

[Brixton Hatter]

Just because roads have been primarily dedicated to the driving and storage of cars for most of recent memory, doesn't mean that always has to be the case. I would say the "excessive control" is the one the motor vehicle has had over almost everything/everyone for the past 50 years. Lambeth has one of lowest levels of car ownership in the UK....58% of Lambeth residents do not own car. What does that imply?

I'm all up for a bit of idealism on this one. And it's something that's actually within our grasp…

 

[CH1]

Just because roads have been primarily dedicated to the driving and storage of cars for most of recent memory, doesn't mean that always has to be the case. I would say the "excessive control" is the one the motor vehicle has had over almost everything/everyone for the past 50 years. Lambeth has one of lowest levels of car ownership in the UK....58% of Lambeth residents do not own car. What does that imply?

I'm all up for a bit of idealism on this one. And it's something that's actually within our grasp…

It implies they manage without a car - by choice or not by choice. Because they can get where they want by other means satisfactorily. Because they can't afford one. Because they don't agree with owning cars. Many reasons.

I never learned to drive myself partly because I don't agree with everyone owning cars and partly because of laziness and inertia.

I must say if I did drive I would be very unlikely to be living in London.

All that said I do not agree with restricting access to various residential areas in Brixton/Camberwell round Loughborough Road - not least because it was NEVER Loughborough Road area residents who wanted it closed.

 

[critical1]

The other thing I forgot to mention is the ambulances. I've seen CHL lots recently when it's busy at rush hour and yes, this is a problem if the blue lights can't get through. But this is as much about street design and driver behaviour than it is about the road closures. Many other streets in London are like this - narrowish, but the emergency services manage to get through. I think the solution is partly (a) for drivers to be more considerate and get the fuck out of the way when required, and (b) to remove some of the on-street car parking which is taking up space on our roads. Why should our taxes pay for (mainly) wealthy people to store their cars on main roads, the purpose of which should be for moving people & traffic?

Lambeth & LJAG championed the narrowing of LJ & other parts of CHL a bit oxymoron of them don't you think? I have noticed that LJAG were in particular very keen for this to happen.
Then have additional grid lock and complaints about poor bus service?

I dont really see many cars parked on the red route of Loughborough / junction during the day or even down CHL, maybe the odd delivery who do seem to be considerate to other road users.

 

[bimble]

Having seen the closures for the past 7 weeks, here's a few observations:

- It is much more pleasant to live, work, walk and cycle in the 'LJ triangle' area
- Traffic and emissions are hugely reduced in the area, esp. Loughborough Road, Akerman Road, Lilford Road etc
- The roads are generally quieter and safer, and I feel safer with my 21 month year old kid with me (both walking and cycling.)
- After an initial clusterfuck of traffic along Coldharbour Lane, with confused drivers not knowing where to go, traffic appears to have reduced, with people driving alternative routes and avoiding the area. The traffic now appears to be at levels comparable with 'rush hour' in other parts of London..

Interesting to read your post, something that talks only about what you see leaving the whole implementation issue aside.
A couple of things in response:

- "After an initial clusterfuck of traffic along Coldharbour Lane.."

This past week/ 10 days I've noticed too that the traffic on Coldharbour Lane has been much less of a problem, it's been moving apart from rush hours.
If that continues into next week (& looks to be a permanent state of affairs and due to people finding alternatives) I'd be very glad.
That would go a long way to reconciling me to the whole scheme, convincing me that it's an improvement.
I'm worried though that this seemingly sudden improvement (since 17th October?) is due to the school holidays.
I know that recently fixed traffic light problems added to the chaos and but I want to wait and see what CHL is like next week before I'm convinced that the traffic from Loughborough Road has really 'evaporated' instead of being displaced onto CHL.
That (increased fumes on CHL, our main shopping walking and bus stop street) has been the single biggest concern for me all along.
It's for this reason that I was upset to learn that the council decided to do their traffic counting on CHL smack in the middle of half term, even though their own guidelines state that any measurements must avoid school holidays to be of use.


- "Traffic and emissions are hugely reduced in the area, esp. Loughborough Road, Akerman Road, Lilford Road etc"

Traffic and emissions have definitely been reduced on Loughborough Road, no question about that, because it's closed.
I've not seen any evidence to support the idea that overall air quality in LJ has improved.
It's clear that some streets are quieter and some are much busier.
Even the scheme's designer George Wright used the term 'there will be winners and losers'. Reason being that not all the traffic displaced by the closures has magically disappeared from the area.

Air quality is a major concern for me. Which is why I have a real problem with the fact that the council's plans for evaluation do not include any attempt at all to find out whether the air we are breathing is better or worse.
In particular, I still can't understand why they decided to use CHL as the control and only measure pollution levels on Loughborough road, which is definitely going to show a marked improvement seeing as it's closed.

If it were possible to see evidence that in the long term this scheme means less not more pollution on coldharbour lane and cleaner air in LJ as a whole, I would be convinced that it's all been worth it.

 

[CH1]

Lambeth & LJAG championed the narrowing of LJ & other parts of CHL a bit oxymoron of them don't you think? I have noticed that LJAG were in particular very keen for this to happen.
Then have additional grid lock and complaints about poor bus service?

I dont really see many cars parked on the red route of Loughborough / junction during the day or even down CHL, maybe the odd delivery who do seem to be considerate to other road users.

LJAG championed a zebra crossing for Coldharbour Lane at the junction of Coldharbour Lane, Shakespeare Road and Loughborough Park. As did ACORN who have now apparently disappeared.

Once George Wright & Co got to work Lambeth traffic engineers went over the top and built out the pavements so traffic is deflected into the centre of Coldharbour Lane at that point. I warned about the pinch point (on here).

I particularly pointed out that the main buses have to swerve to get in to their bus stop on the south side of the road. The P5 has to do a big manoeuvre to get into/out of Loughborough Park.

Naturally the LJAGers are delighted because there is more space for single opposite facing street chairs (not benches - to deter alcoholics and rough sleepers) and massively increased space for planters - giving the Loughborough Farm something to do.

The space looks fine at the moment - but what will happen if LJAG's activists cash in and move on, or simply fizzle out like ACORN have? I doubt Lambeth will add to their streetcare budget if they are cutting the parks budget and talking about leaving parks unlocked to save money and closing libraries or converting them into sports halls.

 

[bimble]

Once George Wright & Co got to work was Lambeth traffic engineers went over the top and built out the pavements so traffic is deflected into the centre of Coldharbour Lane at that point. I warned about the pinch point (on here).

You mean the picnic spot just to the right of this place? (took this pic from the top of a bus couple of weeks back)

 

[CH1]

I think you mean this place? A lovely spot for a solitary picnic.(took this pic from the top of a bus couple of weeks back)
View attachment 78699

But if there was no traffic there........

 

[bimble]

well yes, of course. that would be nice.