Loughborough Junction public space improvements - consultation begins

[prunus]

It's been made abundantly clear that some people didn't like the consultation process - and indeed it has been handled pretty poorly. But to attribute it to conspiracy when it's much more easily attributable to generic human incompetence (exacerbated by funding shortages) is just paranoia.

They're not out to get you - the intent is to improve the living environment for *everyone*.

Try to forget the ineptness of the implementation, look at how much nicer the area is with fewer cars in it. Nicer for everyone, including you. At the cost of slight inconvenience only if you need to *drive* from the area inside the closed roads to Coldharbour Lane (ok, plus probably visiting areas in the triangle down to Herne Hill as well). Journeys in any other direction - north, west, east are largely unaffected, and journeys going further south only have to be diverted via Denmark Hill or Brixton Hill which will not add much percentage-wise to the whole journey.

As the closed roads area is largely within a couple of hundred yards of Coldharbour Lane - how many *driving* journeys are actually required?

I'd say the equation is heavily in favour of the benefits outweighing the disbenefits. Hopefully we'll get a long enough period to properly assess (the timing of the trial with the lights being out was a major error - but again, not a conspiracy, just incompetence).

 

[MrM]

As for conspiracy theory well you have to wonder why the consultation process was so overly FLAWED!

If it's conspiracy rather than ineptitude, what do you reckon is the council's objective here?

 

[teuchter]

critical1 can we do this without all the giant red text please?

Regarding the numbers -

To recap, you said you were "kettled in" and I said this would only make sense if you were one of the minority of local people who made most of their journeys by car. You declined to comment about your car ownership but changed the subject and moved on to claim you were in the "majority" of opinion, and quoted the 3,500 figure which I assume to be referring to the petition.

I pointed out that even if all of those signatories were from the two local wards, it would be nothing near a majority.

I chose the two local wards as my reference population because I can't access population data on a more local level than that.

Lambeth evidently chose a smaller population when they decided to send out their info to 11,000. I don't know where they drew their boundary or how they chose it, because I am not Lambeth council and I am not here to defend their every decision.

3,500 is not a majority of 11,000 either.

Even if it was, we don't know where the boundary of the population signing the petition is. Somewhere outside London judging by the comments on the petition page.

As I have said before, the idea that this can be decided by some kind of referendum process doesn't make sense in any case, because it's a transport policy decision which by its very nature affects both people who live in the area and people who live outside but travel through the area.

You are additionally demanding or should I say DEMANDING statistics at an ultra-local level for car journeys and how many of them could be made by other means. I don't have access to those and I doubt they even exist. However, figures are available for london as a whole and I have quoted them. I see no reason why this particular area should deviate wildly from the rest of London so I think it's reasonable to assume they apply broadly to the residents of LJ too. But yet again, it's not just about people who live here but people who drive through here. How many of the people who live in Dulwich or further out really need to make those journeys by car? It is not unreasonable surely to suggest that a proportion of car journeys from outer to inner London could feasibly be made by other means.

 

[critical1]

I will do a little rewind...

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

 

[DJWrongspeed]

I've just been emailed by Lambeth Cyclists, part of the London Cycling Campaign branch. They want us to fill in a questionnaire. I think I'll abstain as I really don't use that area enough to warrant my opinion.

It's not entirely clear on the 1st page who this is coming from. I think it's Lambeth Council. Survey here

 

[concerned1]

Getting so cross about cars cars cars fgs give it a rest there are NOT only cars on roads the amount of businesses on the roads and they are NEEDED it is not like they can just walk or hop on a bus or bike.
So many services I keep writing long lists and how many people are affected by these closures.
The whole consultation process was aimed at a few who have the Internet and who are in the know as to where to even look on the internet.
But every single household and business are AFFECTED by road closures especially this ridiculous amount in such a staged way.
This must all be about someone boosting their CV as it is nothing about making areas more pleasant. In this scheme places have now been made dreadful and small side roads turned into rat runs. Big lorries having to now manouvere through double parked roads when Loughborough Road is a wide road easy for larger vehicles.
But then who gives a monkey about people who don't own cars????????????
That seemed to be one of their statements well you have low car ownership so damn what!
Businesses are losing trade and will go out of business until more families are faced with going on benefits for what oh a bit of space on a road cycling space blah blah blah How dare the Council treat all these constituents in such a derogatory manner like they are just trash and can be shut in and then have companies either refuse to come to their homes, some cabs now will not drop anyone in these areas, areas of poverty have been turned into ghettos so what who gives a damn all for a piece of space on a road.

 

[teuchter]

I will do a little rewind...



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

I've shown that the intention to do the baseline survey was there right at the beginning of the consultation, and I've given you links to demonstrate that this can be shown to be true regardless of whether or not one wants to believe Lambeth.

So I don't know why you are reposting the above. Do you read anything that others write? It doesn't seem like it.

 

[teuchter]

Getting so cross about cars cars cars fgs give it a rest there are NOT only cars on roads the amount of businesses on the roads and they are NEEDED it is not like they can just walk or hop on a bus or bike.
So many services I keep writing long lists and how many people are affected by these closures.
The whole consultation process was aimed at a few who have the Internet and who are in the know as to where to even look on the internet.
But every single household and business are AFFECTED by road closures especially this ridiculous amount in such a staged way.
This must all be about someone boosting their CV as it is nothing about making areas more pleasant. In this scheme places have now been made dreadful and small side roads turned into rat runs. Big lorries having to now manouvere through double parked roads when Loughborough Road is a wide road easy for larger vehicles.
But then who gives a monkey about people who don't own cars????????????
That seemed to be one of their statements well you have low car ownership so damn what!
Businesses are losing trade and will go out of business until more families are faced with going on benefits for what oh a bit of space on a road cycling space blah blah blah How dare the Council treat all these constituents in such a derogatory manner like they are just trash and can be shut in and then have companies either refuse to come to their homes, some cabs now will not drop anyone in these areas, areas of poverty have been turned into ghettos so what who gives a damn all for a piece of space on a road.

And you don't seem to have actually read anything anyone else has written either.

 

[Belushi]

Friends in my old neighbourhood are going nuts about Lambeth's proposal for a temp road closure in Streatham

Lambeth Council and Sustrans: Stop trial road block on Estreham Road

 

[critical1]

I've shown that the intention to do the baseline survey was there right at the beginning of the consultation... you don't seem to have actually read anything anyone else has written either.

So it was Lambeths intention was it, show me where on any official Lambeth document dated pre Oct 2014 please, as at that meeting (joke consultation) it was made patently clear by the Cllr and George Wright & Co that it was NOT they stated it as such...

Unless the whole room was under the influence of some bizarre malediction called Lambethitus that warped all of our cognitive abilities.

 

[LadyV]

View attachment 79009
Gridlock in central LJ, 18:05


View attachment 79010
Gridlock on CHL East of LJ, 18:08

It was a fair bit busier than that from Tescos to the Gresham Road traffic lights, going east, when I walked down there about an hour afterwards, strange the times of day it seems to be busier, same for the other picture that was posted this morning, except that was going west at about 9.20.

 

[bimble]

Try to forget the ineptness of the implementation

I'm sad it's become so nasty here. Don't want to wade in just now but I do think that this above is a very tall order and the major reason for a lot of the emotion involved.

 

[LadyV]

Also it seems the people at Angell CCTV Partnership have reclaimed their camera as it's now facing north up LR.

 

[LadyV]

I'm sad it's become so nasty here, don't want to wade in just now but do think that this above is a very tall order and the major reason for a lot of the emotion involved.

Yes today has not been a pleasant read, also incredibly repetitive! Hopefully everyone wakes up on the right side of the bed tomorrow!

 

[bimble]

I've just been emailed by Lambeth Cyclists, part of the London Cycling Campaign branch. They want us to fill in a questionnaire. I think I'll abstain as I really don't use that area enough to warrant my opinion.

It's not entirely clear on the 1st page who this is coming from. I think it's Lambeth Council. Survey here

That's very decent and considerate of you: If enough other people had thought that way at time of the original questionnaire we'd never have gotten the results touted by the council which have made many people, including me, so cross (it turns out that the majority of respondents to the original questionnaire were people who did not live locally and who ticked a box saying that their primary means of travel was a bike).

 

[critical1]

Looks like Barrington Road is now congested, traffic still flowing down Loughborough Rd and via Loughborough Junction

 

[bimble]

It's been made abundantly clear that some people didn't like the consultation process - and indeed it has been handled pretty poorly. But to attribute it to conspiracy when it's much more easily attributable to generic human incompetence (exacerbated by funding shortages) is just paranoia.

...misunderstandings and neglect create more confusion in this world than trickery and malice. At any rate, the last two are certainly much less frequent.

— Johann Wolfgang von Goethe[12]

 

[teuchter]

So it was Lambeths intention was it, show me where on any official Lambeth document dated pre Oct 2014 please,

I have done, twice over

 

[critical1]

I have done, twice over

Oh I didnt see it, was that the broken link and the googly cach flyer doc that has very little on it?
Maybe thats why the Cllr and George Wright & Co were not aware of it then.

Ahh thats what you call that, Official Lambeth Documentation

 

[bimble]

 

[teuchter]

Oh I didnt see it, was that the broken link and the googly cach flyer doc that has very little on it?
Maybe thats why the Cllr and George Wright & Co were not aware of it then.

Ahh thats what you call that, Official Lambeth Documentation

The first link is to a post on this thread dated 1st Oct 2015 which quotes from the relevant Lambeth pdf document which is no longer available on their website. Are you suggesting Leo Chesterton fabricated that quote? Well he didn't because the google cache link takes you to the text of that document and you will find that quoted bit in it.

During the trial period the council will closely monitor the speed and volume of traffic in
streets across the area and compare this to the speed and volumes counts taken before
the changes. We will then be able to assess what changes to traffic flow have taken
place and this will help inform any future decision-making.

 

[concerned1]

Also it seems the people at Angell CCTV Partnership have reclaimed their camera as it's now facing north up LR.

Which camera? The tall small topped one by the Farm?

 

[concerned1]

And you don't seem to have actually read anything anyone else has written either.

Based on what? I read everything people write here. People waffle on and on about cars.

 

[critical1]

The first link is to a post on this thread dated 1st Oct 2015 which quotes....the google cache link takes you to the text of that document and you will find that quoted bit in it.

The first post is that an Official Lambeth Documentation? As for the googly cache nothing like what you've said can be seen on that!
Maybe you should post a screenshot of this ephemeral pdf.

As I said earlier repeat.. "That's what you call official Lambeth Documentation" a post on U75

 

[AlexH]

It's worth standing back. The road closure was intended as a means to and end which was to benefit a small area of public space underneath a bridge at Loughborough junction to create a pedestrianised area. It was not a cycling thing nor fundamentally a traffic thing. The locals who live at that spot have spoken that they don't see the need for a road closure and nobody has shown any perceptible benefit in the small area under the bridge that is now closed - are there more people there enjoying it? Not to my knowledge. The only one making most use of it is a camera car parked there (illegally I might add since he is flouting the TMO). It's not all about traffic data or ideals about whether we do without vehicles in London!

 

[teuchter]

It's worth standing back. The road closure was intended as a means to and end which was to benefit a small area of public space underneath a bridge at Loughborough junction to create a pedestrianised area. It was not a cycling thing nor fundamentally a traffic thing.

Not true.

 

[teuchter]

The first post is that an Official Lambeth Documentation? As for the googly cache nothing like what you've said can be seen on that!
Maybe you should post a screenshot of this ephemeral pdf.

The google cache is an HTML version of the PDF. The images seem not to have survived the translation. The text has though. Scroll down and zoom out a bit and you will see it.

 

[bimble]

Not true.

Which bit?

 

[teuchter]

Which bit?

That it was not a traffic or cycling thing. Look at the screenshot I just posted, from the very first consulation material. Both are mentioned as significant parts of the scheme.

 

[teuchter]

I found something interesting whilst trying to find the an original version of that PDF. It's in the appendices to the Consultation report

Much has been made of the fact that a large proporion of the respondees to the official consultation survey were from outwith the consultation area.

Much has also been made about the 750-strong petition that was handed in at the time, representing people opposing the scheme. It is acknowledged in the consulation report, and the appendices break down the signatories by address.

Of the signatories to that petition in opposition to the scheme:
355 from within the consultation area
317 from outside the consultation area

That means that 47% of those who signed the petition against the scheme don't live within the consultation area.