Loughborough Junction public space improvements - consultation begins

[editor]

FYI: There's still plenty of locals venting about these changes vis the comments section of Buzz. I don't think we've ever had such a sustained amount of comments over a single issue before so it's certainly a HAWT topic!

 

[CH1]

I am interested in why you say it would be a "nightmare" to use public transport. For some other reason than it taking longer?

I've done a bit of this. Loughborough Junction to a job in Surbiton via the old Southern Region was sedate, but a doddle.

On the other hand Brixton to Welwyn Garden City was never pleasant - changing at Finsbury Park was heart attack territory whilst Kings Cross was simply a pain in the ass (1983 I'm talking - probably even worse now).

I was once offered the option of a relocation to Corby when my best ever job was relocated due to Heseltine fine tuning of the economy. I turned that down for the opposite reason to irf520.

It would have made sense to buy a house for £4,000 in Corby and keep my bijou Brixton Hill flat at that time. Have two homes in fact. I could have got a Department of Employment grant to do just that.

I didn't drive and couldn't be bothered to learn. At that time Corby station had been axed and buses to Peterborough were twice a day or something.

I had a friend who was a driver and moved to Milton Keynes at exactly the same time for the same macro economic reasons - he worked to Abbey National HQ which the government persuaded out of London to MK.

I think teuchter that you need to understand that people always have reasons which apply to them perfectly validly. You cannot live you life (necessarily) by the book - unless you are a Calvinist or a Catholic - which you yourself may very well be.

Have you ever done long commutes, or had to move to suit an employer? Just asking.

 

[critical1]

Maybe teuchter does not value family life if you leave home at 6am returning at 8pm what little time you have is precious, maybe you should not get a job so far away, but what choices do you have?

I met a younge man on Loughborough road the other day he lives in Hastings and travels to London every day as according to him there is no work for him in Hastings. He said without his van he would be trapped and living on benefits....

I do wonder if he should be made to use public transport along with many others every day! He is a painter and decorator, I won't talk about others as there are so many.

 

[critical1]

I'm just trying to figure out how your claim that you are "kettled" could make any sense.

FYI the population of Vassall and Herne Hill Wards is around 30,000. And I wonder how many of the petition signatories even live in those areas. Very definitely not all of them, looking at the comments.

Yes I wondered this too if it affects all 30,00, why only 11,000 were stated to have been consulted?
Is something wrong here or was it an oversight...

 

[Brainaddict]

I met a younge man on Loughborough road the other day he lives in Hastings and travels to London every day as according to him there is no work for him in Hastings. He said without his van he would be trapped and living on benefits....

I do wonder if he should be made to use public transport along with many others every day! He is a painter and decorator, I won't talk about others as there are so many.

I think overall transport policies are aimed at reducing unnecessary vehicle journeys. Are you sure that coming up with an example of necessary vehicle journeys is a good counter to that? Everyone understands a painter and decorator needs a van to get around.

 

[teuchter]

I think teuchter that you need to understand that people always have reasons which apply to them perfectly validly. You cannot live you life (necessarily) by the book - unless you are a Calvinist or a Catholic - which you yourself may very well be.

Have you ever done long commutes, or had to move to suit an employer? Just asking.

Of course I understand that.

I moved to London because that's where the work is for me - fortunately for me there are lots of other reasons that I'm happy to live here where the work is.

I grew up somewhere (rural scotland) where public transport is virtually non-existent. I am vividly aware of the fact that in many places many people are dependant on their cars for work and for lots of other things. I did, for a relatively short period, work up there doing a job that involved a 20 mile commute. I did not have a car and my only option was to use the rickety local bus (with a ten or fifteen minute walk along some roads without footpaths or street lighting at the end). If you missed the bus in the morning the next one wasn't for about three hours and if you missed the one in the evening around 5.30 your only remaining option was hitchhiking as there wasn't a later one. The bus ride took nearly twice as long as the journey by car because it looped around various villages on the way. I'm not claiming personal hardship here, because that was not a long term job for me and I am in any case fortunate enough to be able to find work that pays well enough that had I decided to remain in rural scotland I could have been able to afford a car. But I wasn't the only one on that bus - there were others for whom that was their long term transport situation.

My reaction to that situation is that something is wrong - we have created a society that is too dependant on indivudually owned transport. Any one who either can't afford a car or can't drive (which includes lots of elderly people) are very limited in their mobility and access to all sorts of things. And there are all the other negative consequences of car dependancy, in that kind of place, which I was and am very aware of - not at all unusual to know of friends or family members who are injured or worse in road accidents. Sometimes the result of impatience or tiredness during the many miles of driving to or from work every year, sometimes drink driving by teenagers who've driven to the pub because that's the only way to get there. The worry when family members are late to arrive home and you start to speculate what might have happened on their journey.

I am describing this to try and explain where my feelings about car dependancy come from - it's not out of ignorance about the travel options and real life situations of others - it comes from a pretty close understanding of the real life effects of living in a car-orientated society if you yourself don't drive (and even if you do).

I have to try and explain this every time I get into discussions about what to do about transport in rural or semi rural areas. The solutions are not straightforward in those cases for lots of reasons. There, there's a strong argument for much increased investment in public transport.

But we are talking about London here, where things are very different. It's arguably the only place in the UK where you can really live without a car and not be at a big disadvantage. So there's much less reason to worry about the consequences of making using a private car a little bit less convenient. I know that many people depend on their vehicles for work and trade. I understand that. But there are big benefits for eveyone in reducing the anount of motor traffic generally. And in my opinion they generally outweigh the relatively minor inconvenience caused to those who do need to use motor vehicles. I'm totally willing to recognise that sometimes that level of inconvenience goes beyond reasonable or minor and that in these cases the advantages of introducing a new measure might not be justified. But it's my observation that the level of inconvenience is nearly always massively over-estimated and overblown. This is why I've been trying to identify where the real problems are with this scheme. Various people complain about how it is going to take so much longer to drive to the hospital. But when you actually look at it, it's a minute or two of extra time on their journey. Or there are claims of havoc and chaos on side streets. But when I go and look for it, in most cases it just isn't there. I find that yes, there is a cut-through through an estate car park and people are using it, and yes that's a problem but it's not one that can't be solved with some adjustments. People complain they are "kettled" but the access on foot and by bus is just the same as it was before. There's been a definite issue on CHL with increased congestion, and I've said several times that if it turns out to be a long term one, then I'd accept that the scheme is not working properly because this congestion affects public transport, and it could genuinely add enough onto journey times that local businesses would plausibly see an impact. But I've also asked that we give it a bit of time, seeing as decades of previous experience has shown that these kind of changes need a decent amount of time to bed in before we can jump to any conclusions.

I'm neither Calvinist, Catholic or (I think) Stalinist. I just think there are big benefits for everyone in reducing the dominance of motor traffic in London generally. And as it happens the biggest benefits in many cases are for the least privileged. I am quite used to being accused of having no idea about people's real life situations because I frequently have these discussions. What I notice is that the people moaning about how their car journeys are impacted rarely have an answer to my question of how they expect (the majority of) people who don't have a car to go about their lives, dealing with the same real life issues - whether that's getting their kids to school or getting to hospital or getting home from work to spend time with their family in the evening - without the same benefit of private transport.

 

[teuchter]

I think overall transport policies are aimed at reducing unnecessary vehicle journeys. Are you sure that coming up with an example of necessary vehicle journeys is a good counter to that? Everyone understands a painter and decorator needs a van to get around.

exactly

 

[critical1]

I think overall transport policies are aimed at reducing unnecessary vehicle journeys. Are you sure that coming up with an example of necessary vehicle journeys is a good counter to that? Everyone understands a painter and decorator needs a van to get around.

Yes "aimed at reducing unnecessary vehicle journeys" but there was no research completed to find out if these journeys were being made!!! it was just assumed that was the case.

They keep changing the goal posts here from town centre to public space to cycle thingy... The base line stats were not even an idea to be presented, it was demanded from George Wright by the residents & he was opposed to it, i repeat it was demanded by local residents... now Lambeth calls that planned consultation! They have even distorted consultation reports and figures.

And to be told by someone who is your equal what to do stinks of superiority, arrogance and disregards the sensibilities of those whose these decisions impact on.

 

[teuchter]

Yes "aimed at reducing unnecessary vehicle journeys" but there was no research completed to find out if these journeys were being made!!! it was just assumed that was the case.

Are you seriously saying you don't think there are many car journeys made in London which couldn't be made by other means without very much difficulty?

 

[teuchter]

^ There's the research that hasn't been done. It's just all been "assumed" apparently.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&r...uZ2je02iZXMF2UqgA&sig2=vkf--jWAlxgg5432G4-MXA

 

[teuchter]

The base line stats were not even an idea to be presented, it was demanded from George Wright by the residents & he was opposed to it, i repeat it was demanded by local residents... now Lambeth calls that planned consultation!

If you're talking about traffic counts, then I think you're talking nonsense. I'm pretty sure before and after counts were planned from the outset. In fact, if you think about it, it's not really possible to do them retrospectively is it?

 

[critical1]

I'm just trying to figure out how your claim that you are "kettled" could make any sense.

FYI the population of Vassall and Herne Hill Wards is around 30,000. And I wonder how many of the petition signatories even live in those areas. Very definitely not all of them, looking at the comments.

Yes I wondered this too if it affects all 30,00, why only 11,000 were stated to have been consulted?
Is something wrong here or was it an oversight...

said:
Yes "aimed at reducing unnecessary vehicle journeys" but there was no research completed to find out if these journeys were being made!!! it was just assumed that was the case.

Are you seriously saying you don't think there are many car journeys made in London which couldn't be made by other means without very much difficulty?

As you say .. please SHOW me evidence of this for what you claim is one of the poorest wards in Lambeth with such low car usage.. so please provide evidence for "the population of Vassall and Herne Hill Wards"

 

[critical1]

If you're talking about traffic counts, then I think you're talking nonsense. I'm pretty sure before and after counts were planned from the outset. In fact, if you think about it, it's not really possible to do them retrospectively is it?

Absolute Poppy COCK.. Now you're talking pure nonsense... or piddly poop.

 

[teuchter]

Absolute Poppy COCK.. Now you're talking pure nonsense... or piddly poop.

So what did you mean by

The base line stats were not even an idea to be presented, it was demanded from George Wright by the residents & he was opposed to it

What base line stats? What do you mean "were not even an idea to be presented"?

 

[critical1]

So what did you mean by

What base line stats? What do you mean "were not even an idea to be presented"?

Didn't you read what I said, I was very clear "were not even an idea to be presented"

 

[teuchter]

Didn't you read what I said, I was very clear "were not even an idea to be presented"

It's not clear at all. Do you mean that the baseline traffic counts were never going to be taken, or do you mean they were going to be taken and then kept secret?

 

[critical1]

Didn't you read what I said, I was very clear "were not even an idea to be presented"

It's not clear at all. Do you mean that the baseline traffic counts were never going to be taken, or do you mean they were going to be taken and then kept secret?

They keep changing the goal posts here from town centre to public space to cycle thingy... The base line stats were not even an idea to be presented, it was demanded from George Wright by the residents & he was opposed to it, I repeat it was demanded by local residents... now Lambeth calls that planned consultation! They have even distorted consultation reports and figures.

They had not been done, were not an idea, were not considered essential....

 

[teuchter]

But the traffic counts are mentioned as an intention in the consultation report (published end of 2014?):

Before the introduction of any experimental road closures, a comprehensive set of speed and volume traffic counts will be undertaken in the area. This will provide the Council with a robust set of baseline information from which it can assess the impact of any closures during the experimental period. This will provide an accurate picture of how traffic movements have changed as a result of the closures.

And they are mentioned as having already been undertaken (in January 2015) in the call-in report (July 2015):

5.1. The impact of the experimental road closures will be evaluated in a number of ways. Speed and volume counts were undertaken at 71 locations in and around the project area in January 2015. These provide a reliable baseline of current traffic volumes and speeds as well as which type of vehicle (including bicycles) are using each road. Traffic counts will be repeated at the same locations after the closures have been introduced and the new traffic pattern has been established. This will allow us to assess the impact of the closures and establish:

•  If the amount of motor traffic using the area has decreased,
  
  
•  Which streets have seen a reduction in motor traffic and which have seen
  
  increases,

•  If traffic speeds have been reduced, and
  
  
•  If cycling has increased

So either you are talking nonsense, both the Lambeth reports are lying, or I am misunderstanding what you are saying. Which is it?

 

[concerned1]

Lying

 

[teuchter]

Right, so we're basically in conspiracy theory territory.

 

[critical1]

But the traffic counts are mentioned as an intention in the consultation report (published end of 2014?):

And they are mentioned as having already been undertaken (in January 2015) in the call-in report (July 2015):

So either you are talking nonsense, both the Lambeth reports are lying, or I am misunderstanding what you are saying. Which is it?

Someone is very good at making PORK PIES
Do you believe everything Lambeth says?
You said talking Nonsense I say your talking POPPY COCK....

The unpublicised consultation meeting (Shhh secrete) @ Longfield hall 15 October2014 was where residents demanded base line monitoring as non had been provided or completed.
George Wright was of the opinion that they were totally unnecessary... in fact he was very opposed to using them...

The result of this meeting was the implementation of some sort of base line monitoring which they have now seemingly implemented. The clever worded and insidious Lambeth document makes reference to what RESIDENTS DEMANDED it was not by any means a Lambeth/LJAG initiative.

 

[teuchter]

So, you are saying that during the consultation period, residents suggested traffic measurements, and as a result, they were undertaken. Isn't that what's supposed to happen in a consultation process?

But in any case Lambeth claim that these measurements were already planned, and that this was stated in the material presented at the public exhibition; ie the material prepared prior to the consultation:

People who viewed the full exhibition were informed that the key emergency services routes would not be compromised as result of the proposed closures. The exhibition material also advised that before any closures took place a comprehensive set of speed and volume traffic counts will be undertaken in the area. This would provide the Council with a robust set of baseline information from which it can assess the impact of any closures during the experimental period. Follow up counts would then provide an accurate picture of how traffic movements changed as a result of the closures.

So, you are saying that the above statement by Lambeth is a lie?

 

[critical1]

So, you are saying that during the consultation period, residents suggested traffic measurements, and as a result, they were undertaken. Isn't that what's supposed to happen in a consultation process?

But in any case Lambeth claim that these measurements were already planned, and that this was stated in the material presented at the public exhibition; ie the material prepared prior to the consultation:

So, you are saying that the above statement by Lambeth is a lie?

Consultation was not planned it was demanded. The Base line was demanded.... Exhibition was a Joke...
teuchter you said it like it was based on fact and you believe what they said,
so I must be talking nonsense NOT

 

[teuchter]

Right - checking back on this thread, this post on Oct 1st, quoting the consultation pdf (ie. information prepared prior to consultation period) contains that same text about the intention to monitor traffic before and after. There is also a vesion of that PDF cached by google here.

So it is clear that there was a stated intention to carry out the baseline monitoring, prior to the 15th October meeting where critical1 claims it was demanded and had not been planned.

So it rather seems like critical1 and concerned1 are talking nonsense.

 

[concerned1]

Hmmm "People who viewed the full exhibition"...... oh that's why they put barriers across the roads and emergency vehicles had to drag them off the roads whereby cyclists then dragged them back! "The exhibition material" the map they had the road closure points on named Angell Town Estate as Max Roache Park! Brilliant and very accurate material. People demanded each of the meetings that were held for the first consultation why would you not hold public meetings if you really wanted to consult people. NO data was presented or available in fact George did not even know the exact places the roads would be closed on ie Lilford Road at any of the meetings by George Wright. As for conspiracy theory well you have to wonder why the consultation process was so overly FLAWED!

 

[concerned1]

Nonsense pffftttt face the facts teuchter the consultations by Lambeth Council who do not even HAVE a consultation policy are so flawed and exclude so many people is shocking

 

[critical1]

Right - checking back on this thread, this post on Oct 1st, quoting the consultation pdf (ie. information prepared prior to consultation period) contains that same text about the intention to monitor traffic before and after. There is also a vesion of that PDF cached by google here.

So it is clear that there was a stated intention to carry out the baseline monitoring, prior to the 15th October meeting where critical1 claims it was demanded and had not been planned.

So it rather seems like critical1 and concerned1 are talking nonsense.

Simple teucter I'd say you've been caught out...
Talking a load of piddly poop again...

 

[teuchter]

The information is plainly there in the links for anyone to check for themselves.

Writing something in red won't make it true.

 

[critical1]

The information is plainly there in the links for anyone to check for themselves.

Writing something in red won't make it true.

SO.... you have not answered this/......

I'm just trying to figure out how your claim that you are "kettled" could make any sense.

FYI the population of Vassall and Herne Hill Wards is around 30,000. And I wonder how many of the petition signatories even live in those areas. Very definitely not all of them, looking at the comments.

Yes I wondered this too if it affects all 30,00, why only 11,000 were stated to have been consulted?
Is something wrong here or was it an oversight...

said:
Yes "aimed at reducing unnecessary vehicle journeys" but there was no research completed to find out if these journeys were being made!!! it was just assumed that was the case.

Are you seriously saying you don't think there are many car journeys made in London which couldn't be made by other means without very much difficulty?

As you say .. please SHOW me evidence of this for what you claim is one of the poorest wards in Lambeth with such low car usage.. so please provide evidence for "the population of Vassall and Herne Hill Wards"

SOMEHOW YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER THIS...
30,000 residents, survey of only 11,000 is my math wrong??

PS:Unfortunately teucters PDF cached by google does not really tally with anything said at this stage and is just a sparce document feel free to look & whatever the intention was did not happen and was not intended to happen, please check the minutes of the meeting LJAG must have them teucter.

 

[concerned1]

And only 633 filled in the survey and a good portion of those were from far away NOT local
FLAWED consultation as is this current one