Loughborough Junction public space improvements - consultation begins

[critical1]

The cyclists from Sth Africa and Scotland were very keen to make sure they could cycle through the 10yds of public space.

 

[critical1]

According to Lambeth, paper version was available at teh exhibition and four separate on-street events.
View attachment 79169

The Loughborough centre drop in display was in response to no display being placed anywhere, enough forms were not available for Loughborough residents, the security guard they hired was always apologising. All the meetings were additional consultations..The whole thing was a bit of a joke, nice bit of spin, the leaflet makes one think it was part of an plan to always have these..

But what do I know...

 

[teuchter]

enough forms were not available for Loughborough residents,

If this is true (and it might be) then obviously that's no good.

However it's fairly clear you're not a reliable source of evidence so who knows what the reality was.

 

[bimble]

I think teuchter it's a mistake to set yourself up as a defender of the whole consultation process, I thought that was the one thing everyone agreed was one sort of a failure or another.

 

[LadyV]

The official consultation did take a record of people's postcodes. Hence, how we know how many respondees were from outside the area. Easy to forget in all this discussion, but amongst the respondees from within the area, the majority were still in favour of the trial. I know there are problems with whether everyone in the local area actually knew about the consultation, but it's worth remembering that if you take all of the "cyclists from other places" out of the equation, the survey still returns a majority in favour.

Oh I know that but flip side I also know of some people who didn't live in the area but knew of a postcode in the area, either fed by someone else or looked up so I don't think the address and postcode is that accurate but it was all they had so we'll go with it.

So taking those figures, yes within the local area, 67% of the locals who responded did vote in favour but as you know sadly that 67% equates to just 181 people vs 112 people against. Ok it's a majority but you have to admit that it's rubbish really. Anyone with any common sense should have seen that that was not a good response from 10,991 residences leafleted. They should have gone back to people and tried harder. It's just shabby.

 

[teuchter]

I don't want to set up as a defender of the consultation process, which seems to have had problems in many ways.

But want to moderate the claims about the overwhelming opposition to the scheme, for which there isn't necessarily convincing evidence.

 

[teuchter]

Anyone with any common sense should have seen that that was not a good response from 10,991 residences leafleted. They should have gone back to people and tried harder. It's just shabby.

Not sure it is "common sense" that it's a poor response. Consultations often have a disappointingly low response rate. I don't know what a "normal" rate of response is and how this one compared. Maybe someone else can comment.

 

[irf520]

I think everyone here agrees the consultation process has been a shambles. However I don't think you can decide on this sort of issue purely on the basis of a local consultation. If you could, what's to stop people in the nice big houses on Kennington Park Road deciding it would be much nicer if all the traffic were diverted around the Oval and around Vauxhall Cross? Or people living next to a substation deciding they don't like the magnetic fields it produces. The fact is that we need infrastructure and it has to go somewhere. It's not as if Loughborough Road was put there recently - it's been around a lot longer than me and has always been reasonably busy as far as I can remember. Just be grateful you don't live on Wellan Close in Welling.

 

[leanderman]

Not sure it is "common sense" that it's a poor response. Consultations often have a disappointingly low response rate. I don't know what a "normal" rate of response is and how this one compared. Maybe someone else can comment.

As I pointed out earlier, a proposal for devolved government in Leeds - affecting 2.5million people - drew 104 comments.

Also, are comments representative?

 

[teuchter]

The fact is that we need infrastructure and it has to go somewhere.

Yup - we need efficient transport infrastructure in a crowded city like London. And unecessary motor vehicle journeys obstruct the provision of this.

 

[CH1]

Not sure it is "common sense" that it's a poor response. Consultations often have a disappointingly low response rate. I don't know what a "normal" rate of response is and how this one compared. Maybe someone else can comment.

I think it might be normal - in that most people throw Pizza leaflets straight in the bin, probably Pravda too.
And City News (UCKG).

All those things are colourful in their various ways.

What chance has a boring old consultation leaflet got?

After all many people can't be bothered to register to vote, which is supposedly an offence.

 

[CH1]

I think everyone here agrees the consultation process has been a shambles. However I don't think you can decide on this sort of issue purely on the basis of a local consultation. If you could, what's to stop people in the nice big houses on Kennington Park Road deciding it would be much nicer if all the traffic were diverted around the Oval and around Vauxhall Cross? Or people living next to a substation deciding they don't like the magnetic fields it produces. The fact is that we need infrastructure and it has to go somewhere. It's not as if Loughborough Road was put there recently - it's been around a lot longer than me and has always been reasonably busy as far as I can remember. Just be grateful you don't live on Wellan Close in Welling.

Hadn't thought about that. Definitely my brain needs the electric field from southern region. That's why Christmas is so miserable for me.

 

[CH1]

As I pointed out earlier, a proposal for devolved government in Leeds - affecting 2.5million people - drew 104 comments.
Also, are comments representative?

And the police commissioner elected on a 10.3% turnout.

 

[critical1]

I don't want to set up as a defender of the consultation process, which seems to have had problems in many ways.

But want to moderate the claims about the overwhelming opposition to the scheme, for which there isn't necessarily convincing evidence.

EVIDENCE... so that petition handed in at a full council meeting by our local councillor was not evidence 700+ petitions were signed is that not enough evidence against the road closures.

Which I note was handed in, on time to be part of the official consultation.... Is all EVIDENCE or is not accordingly enough to be considered by teuchter.

I would certainly not like to be in teuchter court room, judge jury and executioner.

 

[MrM]

The fact is that we need infrastructure and it has to go somewhere. It's not as if Loughborough Road was put there recently - it's been around a lot longer than me and has always been reasonably busy as far as I can remember.

You need extensive road space for cars only if you accept/assume that cars remain the default transport option. But that approach isn't sustainable in London.
Also you suggest cars (should) have supremacy on roads because that's the way you see it. In fact the 'precedent' argument doesn't tell the whole story. Most of London's roads predate car travel. Nationwide the history of large-scale road surfacing owes more to cycling than to motorised transport:
Many roads fell into disrepair after horse-drawn coaches were superceded by rail; It was cycling organisations that first lobbied for (and paid for) resurfacing well before motoring organisations got in on the act.
Either way, we're better off looking forward at what the future will need rather than fighting over what we have now or had a centruy ago.
(though perhaps the roads would be rather calmer if motorists knew they were more indebted to than trespassed upon by cyclists...?)

 

[leanderman]

I think it might be normal - in that most people throw Pizza leaflets straight in the bin, probably Pravda too.
And City News (UCKG).

All those things are colourful in their various ways.

What chance has a boring old consultation leaflet got?

After all many people can't be bothered to register to vote, which is supposedly an offence.

Exactly. It all goes in the bin, unread. Or some forget to reply.

As a residents' group, we often consult on bike sheds, play streets, our CCTV scheme etc.

The feedback is laughable. Two or 3 per cent.

And, by consult, I mean emails, tweets, noticeboard and a leaflet to EVERY house and flat.

Some residents claim never to have even seen our regular newsletter or other material.

 

[bimble]

I think it might be normal - in that most people throw Pizza leaflets straight in the bin, probably Pravda too.
And City News (UCKG).
All those things are colourful in their various ways.
What chance has a boring old consultation leaflet got?

After all many people can't be bothered to register to vote, which is supposedly an offence.

This is different from devolution or pizza though, as you can tell from the petitions and the public meetings , strength of feeling: people do care about this particular issue , a lot, so I believe they would have responded if informed properly .

 

[teuchter]

EVIDENCE... so that petition handed in at a full council meeting by our local councillor was not evidence 700+ petitions were signed is that not enough evidence against the road closures.

Which I note was handed in, on time to be part of the official consultation.... Is all EVIDENCE or is not accordingly enough to be considered by teuchter.

I would certainly not like to be in teuchter court room, judge jury and executioner.

Are you talking about a different petition to the one that is mentioned and acknowledged in the official consultation report?

 

[irf520]

You need extensive road space for cars only if you accept/assume that cars remain the default transport option. But that approach isn't sustainable in London.
Also you suggest cars (should) have supremacy on roads because that's the way you see it. In fact the 'precedent' argument doesn't tell the whole story. Most of London's roads predate car travel. Nationwide the history of large-scale road surfacing owes more to cycling than to motorised transport:
Many roads fell into disrepair after horse-drawn coaches were superceded by rail; It was cycling organisations that first lobbied for (and paid for) resurfacing well before motoring organisations got in on the act.
Either way, we're better off looking forward at what the future will need rather than fighting over what we have now or had a centruy ago.
(though perhaps the roads would be rather calmer if motorists knew they were more indebted to than trespassed upon by cyclists...?)

It's not just about cars though is it? How are goods and tradesmen supposed to get in or out of the area? The only way in or out of that area suitable for large vehicles is the one they've closed.

 

[CH1]

A thing like this though is different from devolution or pizza, as you can tell form the petitions and the strength of feeling - people do care, a lot, and so I believe they would have responded if informed properly .

But because they did not READ, MARK, LEARN and INWARDLY DIGEST (their correspondence) they are lost.

Funnily enough here is the Collect for the Sunday nearest to November 16th. (BCP)

"Blessed Lord, who caused all holy Scriptures to be written for our learning: Grant us so to hear them, read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest them, that we may embrace and ever hold fast the blessed hope of everlasting life, which you have given us in our Savior Jesus Christ; who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen."

What sort of school did you go to? I got all that at state primary around 1964.

 

[critical1]

Are you talking about a different petition to the one that is mentioned and acknowledged in the official consultation report?

Judge jury and executioner

 

[bimble]

What sort of school did you go to? I got all that at state primary around 1964.

i got more this sort of thing ;
‘Whoever touches the mountain is to be put to death.They are to be stoned or shot with arrows, No person or animal shall be permitted to live.’ etc

 

[bimble]

It's not just about cars though is it? How are goods and tradesmen supposed to get in or out of the area? The only way in or out of that area suitable for large vehicles is the one they've closed.

Bin men. Spare a thought for the bin men.

 

[leanderman]

Bin men. Spare a thought for the bin men.

Are your bins overflowing?

 

[MrM]

It's not just about cars though is it?

Well, it's quite a lot about cars - because they tend to account for many of the casual/avoidable journeys.
Example: kids are driven to school because roads are too dangerous to navigate by bike/scooter/on foot; it's that sort of 'traffic evaporation' that we can and should look for.
I'm not saying 'do away with roads' - I'm saying we need infrastructure and systems that encourage socially optimal behaviour (which tends to equate to punishing socially negative behaviour).

 

[bimble]

Are your bins overflowing?

No, my bins are fine thanks, I was commenting in reference to the time added to their work is all, driving the long ways round.

 

[MrM]

And by the way: I don't think they've got the communication or the implementation of road closures right here. I just mean we can't dismiss road closure on principle on the basis that some people are inconvenienced by them. We need to adapt to something that will work in the long term

 

[critical1]

Well, it's quite a lot about cars - because they tend to account for many of the casual/avoidable journeys.
Example: kids are driven to school because roads are too dangerous to navigate by bike/scooter/on foot; it's that sort of 'traffic evaporation' that we can and should look for.
I'm not saying 'do away with roads' - I'm saying we need infrastructure and systems that encourage socially optimal behaviour (which tends to equate to punishing socially negative behaviour).

Kids get driven to school for all sorts of reasons including gangs, crime and disruptive behaviour lots of things... to say to the kids should be walking or cycling to school within this area is a bit absurd even the disabled kids need transport at some point.

Imagine being a parent!!!

 

[teuchter]

It's not just about cars though is it? How are goods and tradesmen persons supposed to get in or out of the area? The only way in or out of that area suitable for large vehicles is the one they've closed.

By driving along the roads that aren't closed. Are you saying the N section of Loughborough Rd is the only road suitable for large vehicles? If we are talking about deliveries or tradespersons vehicles needing to access addresses in the local area, then any of these journeys will involve going along a residential road at the end of the journey. That is something that has to happen anyway. The Loughborough Road section of the previously-possible route would only have accounted for a small proportion of it. Some local deliveries that might have used that stretch of LR to access smaller streets will now use a different route to access those same smaller streets. But all the large vehicles that used to use LR as a through-route are now kept away, and all of those journeys would have involved those large vehicles passing along the smaller streets S of Fiveways.

 

[bimble]

Example: kids are driven to school because roads are too dangerous to navigate by bike/scooter/on foot; it's that sort of 'traffic evaporation' that we can and should look for.

I do agree with you on this. My memories of getting the bus to school as a child in London are all good, but it does seem that for all sorts of reasons people are more reluctant to let their kids do that now.